Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

THAMES BARRIER AND FLOOD PREVENTION

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I beg to move,
That the Committee on the Thames Barrier and Flood Prevention Bill have leave to visit and inspect the site of the proposed barrier provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an Appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by their Counsel or Agent.
Hon. Members will be aware that, although it is the practice for Committees on Private Bills in another place to make visits, in this House the practice can be adopted only with the leave of the House. I must admit that I know of no procedure for such leave being applied for, although it is within my experience, certainly as a Chairman of a Committee on Private Bills, that visits of this sort could in certain

circumstances have been of value to the Committees.
The Bill at present being considered by the Committe is vitally important to many of the inhabitants of London, and the cost of the scheme is estimated at £125 million. One of the duties of the Committee is to satisfy itself about the need for the scheme and the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. David James) has advised me that the Committee would be helped to carry out its duties by a formal visit to the site.
There are a number of petitioners against the Bill, and in hearing the submissions of the promoters and petitioners, the Committee acts in a semi-judicial capacity. In the interests of justice, it is therefore right that the parties affected by the Bill should, if they wish, be represented. If the House agrees to the Motion, I hope that other Committees will not make it a precedent for indiscriminate visits. Dangers could arise from the practice if it were indiscriminate, but in present circumstances I feel that these dangers are minimal.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Committe on the Thames Barrier and Flood Prevention Bill have leave to visit and inspect the site of the proposed barrier provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an Appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by their Counsel or Agent.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Concorde

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what prospects he is now able to assess for firm Concorde orders on the latest evidence available to his Department.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. John Davies): The manufacturers are currently in negotiation with a number of airlines and hope to obtain the first firm orders within the next few months.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply and for finding the useful extra support given by the Government last week. Will he go further today and refute categorically the irresponsible and dangerous suggestion in one Sunday newspaper yesterday that Concorde is experiencing full pay-load problems?

Mr. Davies: I share my hon. Friend's concern that there should be any endeavour to denigrate the achievements of this formidable technological project. The whole question of selling the new aircraft to an airline involves very complex discussions about payload, distance, fuel consumption and the like. To select some curious circumstance and try to attribute some importance of this kind to it is purely mischievous.

Mr. Benn: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said. Will he promise that the Government will intervene actively if there is a suggestion of Government action in other countries which might frighten the airlines off? Have the special points about fuel reserves and special landing priorities for Concorde been considered, in order to deal with the points so wrongly referred to in the papers yesterday, as we did for the 747? What will be the British Government's attitude to supersonic flights over the United Kingdom?

Mr. Davies: On the first question, the primary task of ensuring the sale of the

aircraft lies with the constructor companies, but the Government are giving support to the operation in every form possible. As for fuel reserves and landing procedures, these are part of the negotiating basis between the constructors and the airlines and are matters on which I would not wish to intervene unless for some reason it seemed that things were going badly agley. Supersonic flight is a matter under continual consideration in the Government. The matter will receive attention in the light of the likely developments of commercial supersonic flight over the country.

Mr. Adley: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he is doing to support the manufacturers. Will he take the opportunity to denigrate publicly the persistent attempts of certain "Concorde-knockers", whose motives some of us find rather curious?

Mr. Davies: I hope that everything that has been said by my right hon. Friend, myself and others recently will help to support the valid claims which are made for this project and its great importance not just for Britain and France but for the whole of the future of the aircraft industry.

Mr. Palmer: Is BOAC now prepared to commit itself to a minimum number of orders?

Mr. Davies: This clearly depends on the outcome of the negotiations presently in course. I do not wish at this stage to intervene in these matters. The subject is fully under discussion between the constructors and the airline.

Oral Answers to Questions — Motor Cars (Speed Limits)

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will seek powers to make it an offence for a car to be advertised as capable of reaching speeds in excess of the statutory speed limit.

The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): No, Sir.

Mr. Tuck: Is the right hon. Gentleman unaware that this kind of advertisement is a direct invitation to break the law because people will try out their cars to see whether they will do the speeds of up to 120 m.p.h. which are claimed? What view would he take if I advertised


in the newspapers a new type of blowlamp guaranteed to cut through any safe? That would be exactly the same thing.

Mr. Chataway: With respect, that is not a very exact parallel. The purchaser of a motor car may want to know how close he is to the maximum speed of the car he is driving. There is also the question of exports in that many countries do not apply our speed limits.

Oral Answers to Questions — Jams, Marmalade and Honey

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will seek to modify Schedule 4 (Part VIII) of the Weights and Measures Act, 1963, so as to require jam and marmalade for diabetics to be sold in fixed quantities and to prohibit the sale of all jams, marmalade and honey in quantities of 12 ounces.

The Minister for Aerospace (Mr. Michael Heseltine): No, Sir. The specific gravity of diabetic jams and marmalades is different from that of standard jams. Therefore, if the standard range of quantities were required to be used, a new range of jars would be needed and that would increase costs.
Speciality jams have been sold for many years in 12-oz. jars and the demand for this quantity is increasing. I see no reason to frustrate this demand.

Miss Fookes: I am dazzled by science but not convinced by it. Will my hon. Friend give a more satisfactory answer to the last part of my Question? Is he aware that many people are deceived by jars which look very much like 1-lb. jars but in fact contain only 12 ozs.?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sorry to dazzle my hon. Friend in any way, though she has often dazzled me. I am sure she will understand that each jar must be clearly labelled as to contents and weight, so that I do not feel that deception is either possible or intended.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that metrication, which was the brain-child of the Secretary of State in his C.B.I. days and was very much encouraged by the Government, gives an opportunity, with the packaging changes that are being made, to introduce the sort of unit packaging which the hon. Lady the Member for Merton

and Morden (Miss Fookes) requests? Does he agree that this would be an ideal time to discourage deliberately confusing packaging practices for the same competing goods and that metric measurement of volume and of weight is making it impossible for the housewife to carry out a meaningful value-for-money judgment?

Mr. Heseltine: It will always be difficult with the different specific gravities of weight between jams, but in considering all the possibilities of any future metrication proposals these difficulties will be borne very much in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — Rolls-Royce Limited

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to conclude the negotiations and agree with Rolls Royce Limited a figure for the payment for the nationalised assets and goodwill.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. and the Receiver have recently announced that they have been unable to agree a price by negotiation. In accordance with the sale agreement, therefore, the matter is being referred to an independent expert whose decision will be binding. I cannot at present forecast when a conclusion may be reached. The valuation process must be carried out with care, but I appreciate the urgency stressed by hon. Members.

Mr. Rost: In welcoming my hon. Friend to his new position as Minister for Aerospace, may I ask him what proportion of the price offered by the Government for the acquisition of the assets included goodwill and expenditure on research and development on the RB 211 engine? If the negotiations broke down, did they do so because it was felt that the Government had not offered a fair price?

Mr. Heseltine: I believe that the price agreed for the RB 211 was £1 and that it was accepted by both parties in recognition of all the circumstances of the time.

Mr. Dalyell: Have all the parties agreed that the expert's opinion shall be binding?

Mr. Heseltine: That is a provision of the contract.

Oral Answers to Questions — Ball and Roller Bearings

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what extent the investment programme of the British ball-bearing industry has been restricted by the incursion of Japanese competition in this field, according to information tendered to him.

Mr. John Davies: No examples have been quoted to me of investment plans which have been inhibited by competition from Japan, but the industry has told me that it may have to limit investment in the future unless the rate of growth of imports from Japan is curtailed.

Mr. Ashley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a grave answer which has serious implications for our ball-bearing industry, on which many other industries depend? Does he realise that imports of Japanese ball bearings have increased by 500 per cent. since 1967 and that they doubled last year? What steps does he propose to take to protect our ball-bearing industry and those employed in it?

Mr. Davies: As the hon. Gentleman, I think, knows, the Federation concerned has been to talk to the Department and has asked us to institute certain measures which lie within our power in this sphere. These require the assembly of a considerable amount of information. This is being assembled. Only after this information has been got together will it be possible to see whether the kind of measures envisaged can be taken. I have the matter under very serious and urgent consideration.

Mr. Tomney: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what in formation he has received from industry concerning the piracy of design and catalogue numbers by Japanese manufacturers engaged in the ball and roller-bearing industry and exporting to the United Kingdom.

Mr. John Davies: None, Sir.

Mr. Tomney: I will give the right hon. Gentleman the information. Is he aware that the importation of ball bearings into America has resulted in the complete shutdown of American domestic production and that that is likely to happen

here? Is he aware that I hold in my hand a component part of a motor car which is stamped with the country of origin, Japan, with the manufacturer's name and with the catalogue number by which it is manufactured in Britain? Is he aware that this sort of unbridled and unfair competition is resulting in problems affecting a vital part of British engineering and that unless something is done quickly——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, but I remind him that this is Question time.

Mr. Davies: I will answer the hon. Gentleman's implied question. He asked whether I had certain information. I do not have information of the kind he refers to. On the other hand, the industry has its own rights in the matter and can and should raise with the courts any action which it considers to be a breach of its copyrights or patents. Whether catalogue numbers constitute a protection of industrial property is matter for the courts to decide.

Mr. Tomney: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is bound to lead to large-scale unemployment in the industry, which is being strangled by this kind of competition?

Mr. Davies: Again answering the hon. Gentleman's implied question, I assure him, as I assured his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on the last Question, that I have the matter under very urgent consideration. At the same time, it is for the industry concerned to take in the courts any action it considers to be necessary.

Mr. English: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which of the powers currently exercisable by Her Majesty's Government to inhibit the import of foreign ball bearings will cease to be so exercisable, or to be exercisable only in accordance with the law of the European Communities, after 1st January, 1973.

Mr. John Davies: Broadly speaking, we shall retain our present powers during the transitional period, but will exercise them only in conformity with our Community obligations.

Mr. English: Perhaps I may first point out, Mr. Speaker, that Question No. 1


for Written Answer, which deals with import restrictions on ball bearings made outside EEC and EFTA countries, was supposed to be for Oral Answer, and was intended to be the pair to Question No. 12.
Is the Secretary of State seriously saying that he will be able to retain his present powers? Does he have that in writing? If so, can he give the reference to it in the Agreements with the European Community?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member can remain secure in the belief that in the Community arrangements existing provisions which members had at the time when Community requirements came into force have been preserved in this field, and this will be our case, too.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can the Minister give a definite assurance that after the transitional period he and the Government will be enabled, as now, to fix quotas and import duties irrespective of any discussion with or reference to the E.E.C. whenever he or his Government wish so to do?

Mr. Davies: No. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman well realises from his very intensive attendance at the debates taking place on the matter that those arrangements certainly do not exist.

Mr. Bob Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further facts he has received from the United Kingdom ball-bearing industry about the effects of Japanese competition; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Davies: On 18th January a deputation from the ball and roller bearing industry asked the Government to approach the Japanese Government with a view to securing a voluntary limitation of growth of sales of Japanese bearings in this country. The case put by the industry, together with the further confidential information which manufacturers provided at the Department's request, is under consideration, and I hope shortly to let the industry know the Government's views.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful for the information which the right hon. Gentleman supplied, but he must be desperately concerned that the type of bearing which my hon. Friend the Member for Ham-

mersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) held up a moment or two ago is entering the country at about 50 per cent, of the price of the equivalent bearing supplied by British manufacturers. Does not the Minister realise that we are faced with redundancies here on a four-figure scale, and that it is high time that the Government stopped considering and took action?

Mr. Davies: As the hon. Member knows full well, taking some action in cases like this involves the assembly of a very great deal of specific information. The industry has been helpful in putting forward a lot of information to enable the Government to take steps. The hon. Member need have no fear that if the information confirms the position he outlines, action will be taken.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent consultations he has had with the Confederation of British Industry regarding imports of Japqanese ball bearings; and what action he is taking in consequence.

Mr. John Davies: The CBI is aware of the discussions which have taken place between the Department and representatives of The Ball and Roller Bearing Manufacturers' Association.

Mr. Johnson: The CBI may be aware, but I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the anxieties of the trade unions in the matter? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a first-class firm in Luton put off nearly 900 men last year and is faced with further unemployment in the coming year if Japanese competition goes on? The right hon. Gentleman says that he is collecting information, but how much information does he need before he takes action?

Mr. Davies: As the hon. Member knows, in order to take action either in respect of anti-dumping or under the trade agreement with Japan we have to be satisfied, first, that there is manifest damage expected to the industry of the country and, secondly, that there is an effective dumping procedure in force. In so far as anti-dumping procedures are required, these are very complex things to prove, but I am seeking to acquire the necessary information.


which is not, I assure the hon. Gentleman, readily or easily forthcoming.

Mr. Adam Butler: The case has been made out for the ball-bearing industry, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend is very well aware of the representations made by the textile industry over a much longer period.

Oral Answers to Questions — Offshore Installations (Production Platforms)

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria he has laid down for certificates of fitness for production platforms under the Mineral Working (Offshore Installations) Act, 1971; and what authority has been appointed to see that they are met.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tom Boardman): Criteria will be included in regulations at present being discussed with those who may be affected. Certificates will be issued by me or by authorities yet to be appointed under the regulations.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I wish my hon. Friend every success in his exacting new responsibilities.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Here come the brewers.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is my hon. Friend aware that lack of basic design criteria covering fatigue and other factors is inhibiting British competition in offshore platform construction and that "best-known practices" are no substitute for proper criteria when three different oil companies are basing designs on widely divergent forecasts of wave characteristics in the same area of the North Sea?

Mr. Boardman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his good wishes.
My hon. Friend must bear in mind that lengthy consultations are going on. The draft regulations have been fully discussed and are subject to full discussion with those interested. I assure my hon. Friend that the points he made are being taken fully into account.

Mr. Douglas: While echoing the good wishes of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) to the new Minister, may I ask him for an assurance that any recommendations from his Department will be speeded so that there is

no delay for British firms wishing to compete in the construction of these rigs, the building of which is extremely important to some areas of the country and particularly to Scotland?

Mr. Boardman: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks.
I assure him that this matter is proceeding as fast as possible and that full consultation is going on. Nobody should be inhibited at this stage from proceeding with design and other work.

Mr. Alan Williams: I, too, wish the hon. Gentleman well in his new office.
Is he satisfied that the regulations will be adequate to cover conditions in the Celtic Sea, where climatic conditions can be unprecedented in offshore work?

Mr. Boardman: This is one of the factors which is being taken fully into account, and full environmental conditions are under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — Scottish Development Area

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further representations he has received to date about the exclusion of Edinburgh from the Scottish Development Area; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Chataway: None, recently, to my Department on this specific subject. As to the reasons for leaving Edinburgh with intermediate area status, I would refer the hon. Member to the letter sent to him on 11th April by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industrial Development.

Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that trade unionists, industrialists, and all shades of opinion in Edinburgh bitterly resent the Government's latest decision on the matter? How much longer has male unemployment in Edinburgh to rise faster than that in the rest of Scotland before the Government are prepared to stop discriminating against Edinburgh-based industry?

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Member knows very well the arguments against the diluting of assistance given to development areas, but I hope that he realises that in the Budget and in the subsequent White Paper very substantial measures were announced which will be of direct


assistance to intermediate areas such as his own.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my right hon. Friend note that this Question, like so many other Questions, demonstrates the extent to which all these various very complicated grades of development preference seem to be far more effective in stirring up animosity in the areas that do not have them than they are in giving satisfaction in those that do, and will he draw the moral from that state of affairs?

Mr. Chataway: Whatever moral one might draw, one would still be left with the recognition that there are very serious problems to be tackled, and we intend to tackle them.

Oral Answers to Questions — Supersonic Flying

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in view of the information supplied to him by the hon. Member for Wands worth, Putney, he will make a further statement on the States that have banned supersonic flying over their territory, and indicate what countries have recently enacted bans, and what countries have declared their intention to introduce such a ban.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: A number of countries permit controlled supersonic military flying in their airspace. Only Switzerland has introduced legislation to prohibit overland supersonic flying. Each country will decide for itself the controls it wishes to apply to civil overland routes. A few countries have indicated an intention to regulate supersonic over flying, but I cannot speculate on the form these controls will take.

Mr. Jenkins: Is it not the case that the possibility of the commercial success of this aircraft is increasingly remote as more and more countries—and Canada is one—take the view that the aircraft cannot be allowed to fly over their territory? There is no possibility of this project being a commercial success. Will the Minister try to persuade the British Aircraft Corporation to start building some useful subsonic aircraft and to abandon the delusions of supersonic grandeur which have meant spending £1 million a day? If the Minister is to add to that expenditure a research subsidy, a development subsidy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—a production subsidy, and after

that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—an operating subsidy as well——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is going on too long.

Mr. Heseltine: I must say to the hon. Gentleman that his continually repeating that Concorde cannot be a commercial success makes it no truer now than when he first said it.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my hon. Friend consider holding an international conference to work out supersonic air lanes for this aircraft?

Mr. Heseltine: This is a matter for individual Governments. A number of them are looking at it, and a number of others have made recommendations with which my hon. Friend is familiar. It will be right for the British Government to watch the train of events in this field.

Mr. Millan: I should like to add my congratulations to those already offered to the hon. Member on his present position. I am sure that it must be very worrying for the Government that so many of these things should be in a state of complete indecision when the hope is that firm orders for Concorde will be placed very soon. Can the Minister say, quite apart from supersonic flights over territories, what discusions there have been with, for example, the United States Government about landing rights at airports in the United States? This is another extremely important matter that we should like to see settled.

Mr. Heseltine: The question of landing rights is a matter for the individual airlines, but it is important to say that since the Concorde project was started a very large number of hurdles have had to be overcome, and the vast majority of them have been overcome. In a very sophisticated project of this kind it must be recognised that there are bound to be a number of problems outstanding, but the Government remain confident that these will be overcome in order to see that airlines buy the project on a suitable scale.

Oral Answers to Questions — Marshall Report

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he proposes to take to implement the recommendations of the Marshall Report


concerning British Aircraft Corporation and Hawker-Siddeley.

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now make a statement about the Marshall Report.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I have nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend on 1st March which confirmed that he would consider making a statement when he had received and considered the report.—[Vol. 832, c. 134.]

Mr. Adley: I, too, congratulate ray hon. Friend on assuming his present position, and wish him every success in it. As there are six or seven places which are inordinately dependent on BAC or Hawker-Siddeley for future employment, will my hon. Friend as soon as possible come to a decision either to accept or to reject the recommendations made by the Marshall Committee, because many people are in doubt about the future of the aircraft industry in many places?

Mr. Heseltine: I am aware of the diversity of the aircraft industry. I am delighted already to have visited Bristol since my appointment. I certainly realise the importance of this report. We shall treat it with the urgency it deserves.

Mr. Millan: I emphasise again the urgency of this matter because there is so much uncertainty in the industry and elsewhere. Will the Minister undertake to publish the Marshall Report, or at least so much of it as is necessary, to enable the House to judge the merits or otherwise of the Government's decisions?

Mr. Heseltine: We have undertaken to make a statement about the Marshall Report, but it is an internal report and we have made it clear that it was never intended for publication.

Mr. Wilkinson: If the report suggests that Hawker-Siddeley and BAC should be merged, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that rather than set up a Rolls-Royce-type of monopolistic monolith, he will urge British manufacturers to collaborate with European manufacturers rather than to combine?

Mr. Heseltine: I do not believe that there is a danger of a monoply in the aero-space industries, but certainly we are very aware of and would welcome any

developments beyond the national boundary.

Mr. Dalyell: Precisely why should it not be published?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member is familiar with the very large amount of research and consultation work within Government Departments which is not published and which it is a matter for Governments to decide whether to publish.

Oral Answers to Questions — Regional Development Areas (Free Depreciation)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of increased industrial activities in regional development areas, following the 100 per cent. free depreciation facilities announced in the Budget on 21st March, 1972.

Mr. Chataway: While no precise estimate is possible, we expect the extension of free depreciation countrywide to stimulate demand for plant and machinery supplied by firms in all parts of the country, including the development areas.

Sir G. Nabarro: When does my right hon. Friend expect to see some signs of resuscitation of orders in the capital goods industries, as, for example, in the Midlands, where the Budget appears under this head to have made no impact at all?

Mr. Chataway: My hon. Friend should not expect to see the effects of the Budget already. But it will be clear to him that the package of measures contained in the Budget and the White Paper will be a very substantial stimulus.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does not the Minister realise that, as in 1969 two and a half times as much new industrial space was approved in Wales as was approved in 1971, we need an absolutely massive improvement before the country can be satisfied? If he considers that the future is so promising, will he explain why the Government did not introduce these measures earlier and before, through their economic ineptitude, they threw an extra half a million people on the dole queues?

Mr. Chataway: I believe that people who take a more unbiased approach to these problems will recognise that the Government are having to tackle difficulties which have their roots spread over many years, and that the measures contained in my right hon. Friend's Budget amounted, perhaps, to the most substantial attempt ever made to solve problems of the development regions.

Oral Answers to Questions — Ministry of Development (Newcastle Offices)

Mr. Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will consider setting up a Government office in Newcastle for the new Minister for Development in view of the fact that the other main development areas, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland already have offices in being for their respective areas.

Mr. Chataway: The Department's offices in Newcastle and the other development areas in Great Britain are responsible to me and I intend that they shall all have substantial delegated powers.

Mr. Milne: Is the Minister aware that we are not asking about the responsibility of the departments in the various development areas to him but about his responsibility to them? If development area policy is to mean anything in reducing the high unemployment figures, the Minister would do better to tackle that job sited on the spot. For the reasons I stated in the Question, Newcastle is the obvious centre from which this Ministry should operate.

Mr. Chataway: I hope to spend a good deal of my time in the regions. Obviously, I have a responsibility for all the regions, but the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that I shall certainly not overlook the North East.

Mr. Benn: As the Conservative Government before 1964 appointed Lord Hailsham as Minister with special responsibilities for the North East, and the previous Labour Government had a Minister with responsibility for the North East, will the right hon. Gentleman look again at this point? Special needs exist there which would best be met by arrangements more comparable with those which have operated in respect of Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Chataway: Obviously the appointment of Ministers is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I believe that the integrated approach upon which we are embarked is the most promising means of assisting the regions.

Oral Answers to Questions — Machine Tool Industry

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement about which companies will receive increased financial assistance in the machine tool industry, as a result of the Budget proposals.

Mr. Chataway: All firms are eligible to take advantage of the recently announced £9 million-£10 million scheme for additional and accelerated public sector orders.

Mr. Huckfield: Is the Minister aware that most firms in the machine tool industry have employees who have very little confidence and very poor morale at present, particularly at Alfred Herbert's at Coventry? Can he give any indication of how much individual firms may expect to receive, and particularly Alfred Herbert's? Many of my constituents feel that it will be a case of too little too late.

Mr. Chataway: The proportion of the £9 million-£10 million that is secured by any individual firm will depend on that firm. But the hon. Gentleman will have pointed out to his constituents, I am sure, the effects that free depreciation is likely to have in due course on the machine tool industry.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the Minister aware that the Churchill Machine Tool Company in Greater Manchester remains under sentence of death, that redundancies have already begun to take place there, and that if further redundancies occur an already grave employment position in Greater Manchester will further deteriorate? What hopes are there for saving Churchill's?

Mr. Chataway: I do not wish to comment upon the position of the firm which the hon. Gentleman mentions, but I draw his attention also to the substantial steps which the Government have taken to assist the machine tool industry.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of state for Trade and Industry what are the latest conveniently available figures of output for the machine-tool industry.

Mr. Chataway: Provisional delivery figures for the fourth quarter and year 1971 have been published in Business Monitor P 64, a copy of which is in the Library. This shows that the current value of deliveries declined by 5 per cent. between 1970 and 1971.

Mr. Dalyell: Is there any evidence as yet that the Government's Budget measures are working?

Mr. Chataway: Obviously it would be too soon to produce evidence of that kind. In addition to the extra orders that have come from the public sector, there has been free depreciation, which is of special importance for machine tools, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced that in the context of selective assistance priority study is being given to machine tools.

Mr. Maclennan: In view of the Minister's remarks about free depreciation, may I ask whether he is satisfied that this is not an opaque aid to the industry which will fall under the strictures of the EEC Commission? In any case, in view of the undesirability of constant chopping and changing in aid measures of this kind, can he give any indication of how long this measure is likely to survive?

Mr. Chataway: We are satisfied that all these measures are consistent with the obligations that we shall assume as members of the Community. The hon. Gentleman's second question is clearly one for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Oral Answers to Questions — Steel

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the Government's policy for the steel industry, and to what extent this will mean the closing of existing steel works and redundancies in the industry's and to what extent the Government's proposals are based on the prospects of Great Britain's entry into the Common Market.

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now announce the details of his plans regarding the financial investment and capacity requirements of the British Steel Corporation up to 1980; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now publish the long-term development plans for the British Steel Corporation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Davies: I have nothing to add to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) on 10th April.—[Vol. 834, c. 843–45.]

Mr. Lewis: That is a very disappointing reply. Will the Minister give a definite assurance that, come what may, under whatever conditions we may enter the Common Market, he and the Government will be able and entitled to take whatever action they may desire, without reference to the EEC, on matters relating to prices, redundancies, the price of steel and all matters pertaining to the steel industry, without question, let or hindrance from the EEC countries? Will the Minister give a definite pledge on these matters?

Mr. Davies: As the hon. Gentleman very well knows, on the question of prices I cannot and will not give him that undertaking, because the principles regarding prices are embodied in the ECSC Treaty. Redundancies are a matter for the Corporation and not for me.

Mr. Lewis: The right hon Gentleman cannot give any promises at all.

Mr. Hughes: Has the Secretary of State's attention been drawn to the proposal of the British Steel Corporation to close the former Stewarts and Lloyds tube works in Newport, Monmouthshire? Instead of allowing that, would he try to ensure investment at these works in line with their profitability over many years and the fine product which has always been made there? Will he also bear in mind the heavy unemployment in Newport at present?

Mr. Davies: I am naturally very concerned with the questions to which the


hon. Gentleman refers. I know that the hon. Gentleman realises that questions of closure, redundancies and further investment are primarily for the Corporation. It is evident that I take a very great interest in these matters, particularly from the point of view of regional policy——

Mr. Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman can make no promises.

Mr. Davies: —and from the point of view of the Government's investment interests in this massive industry——

Mr. Lewis: And the EEC.

Mr. Davies: —but this is primarily a matter for the Corporation.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: My right hon. Friend will realise that my Question deals specifically with the long-term development plans which we were promised would be announced last year. Why has there been this long delay? Can he announce an early date when these plans will be published, because their absence is causing a great deal of concern to plant manufacturers?

Mr. Davies: I am as concerned as is my hon. Friend with the urgency of these problems, The fact that publication has been later than I expected is due entirely to the complex nature of the assessments which have demanded far deeper and more careful study than had ever previously been made. I should like to reassure my hon. Friend in one respect. The present level of investment in this industry is very high. Irrespective of the considerations of long-term strategic investment, present investment in the steel industry is at an historically high level. Therefore, in terms of the immediate future of the industry, nothing is being neglected which could possibly be proceeded with.

Mr. Ashley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last night I attended a mass meeting in Stoke-on-Trent at which the possible closure of the Shelton Steel Works was discussed? There is growing concern in North Staffordshire, because, if this steelworks closed, it would turn North Staffordshire into a distressed area. Will the right hon. Gentleman take account of this very grave state of affairs and accept my assurance that, if this

works is closed, what has happened on Upper Clyde will be as nothing to what the moderate men of North Staffordshire will be doing?

Mr. Davies: I am as anxious as is the hon. Gentleman to ensure that the future of the industry is planned with due regard to the existing interests of people employed in it and to the major interests of customers, both at home and abroad. All this is important in the determination of the best long-term plan. This occasions the very deepest consideration, particularly in circumstances in which the steel market in current terms, and even in outlook, is still looking very uncertain.

Mr. Edward Taylor: When will my right hon. Friend be able to tell us how many price basing points for steel the EEC will permit us to have——

Mr. Lewis: He can make no promises.

Mr. Taylor: —in the event of our joining the Community? Is my right hon. Friend aware that Scotland was very glad to have his assurance recently that Hunterston is still an open question and we hope that there will still be a decision on this——

Mr. Lewis: He can promise nothing.

Mr. Davies: Detecting the purport of my hon. Friend's question as best I may through the sedentary interjections of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), I must tell my hon. Friend that the question of basing points for pricing purposes by the Corporation is one in which the Corporation is deeply engaged. I hope that these negotiations will soon be completed and that the Corporation will make the necessary announcement.

Mr. Benn: Would it not be nearer the truth for the right hon. Gentleman to admit that he held back the steel investment plan with a view, first, to cutting it and then, while he was reviewing it, realised the need for expansion? Is it not true that the Government have not given a clear lead to the competitive steel industry? Although investment is at a high level, is there not a serious need for plant manufacturers and for the industry as a whole to know what the level of investment is to be and also, to stress a point which has been raised


more than once this afternoon, to know the impending level of redundancies?

Mr. Davies: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman should recall that in 1971–72 the out-turn of investment will be about £258 million, which is nearly double the figure for the preceding year, which figure was the outcome of investment decisions taken previously. The right hon. Gentleman cannot in reason make a charge that the Government intended to restrain the level of investment. What the Government were concerned to do was to move ahead with all investment they humanly could without prejudicing the Corporation's long-term interests.

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made on the effect of steel-consuming industries in Scotland of the pricing policy which will be required to be introduced to conform to the rules of the European Coal and Steel Community.

Mr. Tom Boardman: The Corporation and the independent steel producers are examining the effect as part of their detailed study to see where to place their basing points. Government Departments are being kept in touch with the progress of this study.

Mr. Taylor: Can my hon. Friend confirm that it will no longer be possible to continue a uniform price for steel in Great Britain? When does he think Scottish industrialists will have some indication whether the prices relative to England will move up or down?

Mr. Boardman: The pricing policy is, as my hon. Friend knows, governed by the regulations and there will not be uniformity throughout. However, there may well be a number of basing points, and it may be, as there can be, one in Scotland which could be advantageous to Scotland. It is the intention of the Steel Corporation to minimise disturbance in the traditional price pattern.

Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman given an assurance that whatever basing points are chosen, pricing will not be damaging to the shipbuilding industry?

Mr. Boardman: As I said, it is the Corporation's intention to minimise disturbance to the traditional pricing pattern.

It will make an announcement fairly soon.

Oral Answers to Questions — Natural Gas

Mr. Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the percentage of natural gas lost during 1971 in the transmission systems of the gas industry; and what was the overall percentage loss in 1971 compared with 1961, before the advent of natural gas.

Mr. Tom Boardman: This is a matter within the responsibility of the gas industry, and I have asked the Chairman of the Gas Council to write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Palmer: Is the Minister aware that that is a very superficial and unsatisfactory answer, that natural gas is now leaking into electricity supply substations, that there have been a number of explosions, that there has been loss of life, and that much of this is due to the unsatisfactory condition of many of the old gas networks which should never have been used in this situation? It is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to say that the Chairman of the Council can write to me. I can always write to the Chairman of the Council at any time.

Mr. Boardman: I am well aware of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but the Gas Council, which has the responsibility for this matter, has many safety regulations, of which the hon. Gentleman is aware. The enforcement of those safety regulations is good, and this is a matter on which the hon. Gentleman should refer to the Gas Council. I am satisfied that the regulations as they are now prepared by the Gas Council comply with requirements that are reasonable.

Sir G. Nabarro: May I correct my hon. Friend? The House has, and always has had, absolute responsibility for safety in natural and town gas matters—in fact, for the whole of the carbonisation industry. As these mains cross my constituency in considerable volume, will not my hon. Friend re-apply himself to this matter, as I am conscious of the needs for my own and my constituents' safety?

Mr. Boardman: My hon. Friend is of course correct—the responsibility lies where he said. That responsibility is


discharged to the extent that the regulations of the Gas Council are properly applied and effective. I will, as my right hon. Friend has always done, give full weight to what my hon. Friend said.

Oral Answers to Questions — Computer Industry

Mr. Golding: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is yet able to announce the level of governmental aid to the computer industry.

Mr. Chataway: The recommendations of the Select Committee on Science and Technology about aid to the computer industry are still under consideration. I shall make an announcement as soon as is practicable.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that only last week another 550 redundancies were declared in the computer industry in North Staffordshire and that the industry is waiting for a rapid implementation of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Science and Technology which will protect the British computer industry in a situation in which computer industries are protected worldwide?

Mr. Chataway: The Government have already taken action on certain of the Select Committee's recommendations and announcements have been made about purchasing softwear and the centralisation of computer procurement. Very far-reaching proposals were made which require detailed consideration and discussion with the computer industry. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will make an announcement as soon as is consistent with getting the answer right.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Secretary of State for Social Services with a view to increasing the use of computers in the hospital service and in other sections of the National Health Service, in an attempt to increase the demand for computers? This has proved greatly successful in a number of regional hospital boards and has brought about a substantial saving of manpower, which is very short in the National Health Service.

Mr. Chataway: I will certainly take note of that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — CBI (Price Restraint)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the progress of his discussions with the Confederation of British Industry regarding the renewal of their price restraint scheme; and the effects of such renewal on the finances of the nationalised industries.

Mr. John Davies: On the first part of the Question I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 28th March; on the second part of the Question I have nothing to add to what I told my hon. Friend on 20th March.—[Vol. 834, c. 232–3; Vol. 833, c. 1064.]

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not by now evident that a further period of price restraint imposed upon the nationalised industries could well place them in a condition of chronic dependence on taxpayers' subsidies to pay their wages bills? Would not this, far from contributing to a dampening down of inflation, chronically and vastly accelerate the rate of inflation?

Mr. Davies: These are the vexing questions with which we are faced in trying to restrain the movements of inflation—an effort to which, as I know, all hon. Members on both sides are strongly Committed. The problem of the financial situation of the nationalised industries is clearly one of real concern to me. My hon. Friend will agree that control of the inflationary tendency is still the most critical question with which the country is faced.

Oral Answers to Questions — North Sea Oil (Development Projects)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the relationship of the proposed Industrial Development Board with companies undertaking development projects in connection with North Sea oil.

Mr. Chataway: Companies undertaking such projects will fall within the field of interest of the Industrial Development Board.

Mr. Douglas: Could the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that one of the delegated powers that he will give to the region might be in respect of the petrol division itself? Can we look for a transfer of the petrol division of his Ministry to Scotland in view of the vast North Sea oil potential there?

Mr. Chataway: The petroleum division is responsible for the licensing arrangements for getting petroleum and for all other matters relating to fuel and power which are outside the rôle of the Industrial Development Executive for which I have responsibility.

Mr. David Steel: Has the right hon. Gentleman had a chance to meet his new colleague, Lord Polwarth, the Minister of State, Scottish Office, and ascertain his views on the agencies which might be set up in Scotland in order to make use of the revenues from North Sea oil? If not, will he do so?

Mr. Chataway: I intend to work in the closest consultation with Scottish Ministers.

Oral Answers to Questions — Consumer Credit (Crowther Report)

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if it is still the Government's intention to legislate to implement the main recommendations of the Crowther Report on Consumer Credit.

Mr. John Davies: I have already accepted the need for major reform of the law relating to consumer credit, and preparations for this are in hand. I will make a statement of general intent as soon as I can.

Dr. Gilbert: While that reply is very welcome, may I ask my right hon. Friend to draw to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that one of the first principles of the Crowther Report was that all credit transactions should be treated on the same basis, and further draw to his attention the outrageous proposal in this year's Finance Bill that interest applicable to hire-purchase transactions with the ordinary public will not be exempt, while large amounts of interest on money borrowed for Stock Exchange speculation will be exempt?

Mr. Davies: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will take note of that comment, having regard, however, to the difficult context in which the decision had to be taken.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by a legal device companies such as Alpha Home Improvements Limited are denying housewives the protection that was intended under the Hire-Purchase Acts. Does he not realise that the need for action is now urgent, as the housewife is being treated very badly by unscrupulous doorstep spivs?

Mr. Davies: Yes, I have had this drawn to my attention. One of the purposes that the Crowther Report sought to serve was to ensure that all such arrangements as the hon. Gentleman mentioned should be subject to the same degree of control as are hire-purchase arrangements, in the sense that there must be a period during which revocation is open to the customer.

Oral Answers to Questions — Midlands (Industrial Activity)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of increased industrial activity in the Midlands arising from his Budget proposals.

Mr. Chataway: The proposals announced on 22nd March are part of a coherent programme for the modernisation and expansion of British industry in all parts of the country. The Midlands will also benefit substantially through the extension of free depreciation on plant and machinery and the increased initial allowance for industrial buildings.

Mrs. Renée Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—apart from that platitudinous reply, which told me nothing—that the West Midlands is gradually becoming an area of vast industrial dereliction with an unemployment rate higher than the national average? Is he aware that within Wolverhampton 300 young people, school leavers, are unable to get jobs, and there are several hundreds more coming out of school in July? What does he intend to do? When does he reckon that these alleged benefits will be felt in the West Midlands?

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Lady asks me a question which clearly is capable of no direct reply since there could not


be evidence as yet of the measures taken in the Budget. However, she may be interested to know that there are continuing signs of recovery amongst manufacturers of consumer goods in the West Midlands. The number of IDC applications received during March in the West Midlands for projects in excess of 5,000 square feet was 57, the highest for over a year, and 47 of those were for areas over 10,000 square feet—an exceptionally high proportion.

Mr. Dan Jones: Have those applications been granted?

Oral Answers to Questions — Polyester Yarn (Japanese Imports)

Mr. Normanton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is aware that the import of polyester yarn from Japanese sources has grown from 2 per cent. of the United Kingdom market in 1970 to 20 per cent. in January, 1972; and if he will take action to safeguard British interests.

Mr. John Davies: The principal British producers have made representations to me about these imports, which I am considering.

Mr. Normanton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that brief but courteous reply. May I urge him to consider the serious consequence of allowing the present situation to continue for a minute longer than necessary? May I also ask him, in view of the fact that his officials are currently negotiating technical details with the Commission officials in Brussels, whether he will impress upon his officials in these negotiations the need to place British interests in the forefront of their policy ambitions and not to sacrifice a major section of British industry as previous Administrations have done in respect of Lancashire?

Mr. Davies: I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that my officials always have the interests of Britain primarily in their minds.

Oral Answers to Questions — Post-Apollo Programme

Mr. Bishop: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he proposes in relation to the post- Apollo programme to preserve United Kingdom supremacy in all large structures projects and to ensure United Kingdom

participation in the European Space Club. European Launcher Development Organisation and European Space Research Organisation post-Apollo programmes in the future.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The Government have decided to take a full part, along with other European nations, in further exploratory work designed to facilitate evaluation by the European Space Conference of its response to the United States offer of participation in the post-Apollo programme. The contribution of the Government to this further work is estimated at £240,000. Much of this money will be spent with British companies. I am not able to comment as to the likely outcome of these researches until they have been completed.

Mr. Bishop: While appreciating the hon. Gentleman's reply, may I ask him whether he is not aware of the concern of the British aerospace industry for the need to increase collaboration with the United States on this aspect in order to reduce fragmentation and launcher costs? Will he ensure that if we enter the EEC the United Kingdom will give a continued initiative in this matter?

Mr. Heseltine: In reply to both questions, I am sure that the announcement will be welcomed by industry.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a Report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology arising from the work of a Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) which has some important recommendations to make about British participation in the post-Apollo programme? May we be assured, in addition to what my hon. Friend said today, that the full report of the Committee will be urgently considered and reported upon by the Government as soon as possible?

Mr. Heseltine: We are aware of the work that was done, and I am looking at the report. I will take an early opportunity to announce any conclusions that I may reach.

Mr. Palmer: While congratulating the hon. Gentleman on the reply that he has given about the post-Apollo programme, which was one of the recommendations of the Select Committee, may I ask him


to say whether the Government are prepared to accept the main recommendation of the Select Committee, namely that a British space agency should be created?

Mr. Heseltine: I cannot answer that question, but it is a very important part of the matter that I am considering.

Mr. Benn: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the £240,000 which he has announced today will allow a decision to be reached in time to meet the deadline by which the European countries, including the United Kingdom, have to decide whether to respond to the bigger programme, running into £8 million a year, involved in full participation in the post-Apollo programme?

Mr. Heseltine: The present objective of the European Space Conference is to reach a decision on European participation in the shuttle programme in July and to take at the same time a decision in principle on participation in the tug or orbital systems which form part of the programme. This is as fast as we can go.

Oral Answers to Questions — British Airports Authority (Fire Precautions)

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many firemen are employed by the British Airports Authority.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: This is a matter for the British Airports Authority.

Mr. Bidwell: Is the Minister aware that there is a proposed reduction in fire-fighting staff at airports arising from the introduction of new foam-producing fire fighting equipment? Apart from the concern that there must always be at any such news of a reduction in fire-fighting staff, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this depletes the number of personnel who might be available for rescue work? Will he look at this matter more deeply, in the public interest?

Mr. Heseltine: The question of safety is one for the Civil Aviation Authority and I have no doubt that the Authority will be bear this matter very much in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVAN SHIPBUILDERS LIMITED

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Sir T. BEAMISH: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is now in a position to state what precise agreements have been or will be made with the trade unions concerned as a precondition of Government support for Govan Shipbuilders Limited; which restrictive practices are to cease; whether all collective agreements on pay and conditions will be legally enforceable; what trial period is allowed during which effect must be given to any such agreements; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. BRUCE-GARDYNE: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement about the progress of his negotiations with the Marathon Manufacturing Company regarding the provision of financial assistance for the re-equipment of the Clydebank Yard, and outline the methods to be used to monitor the expenditure of such assistance on the purposes for which it may be granted.

Mr. EDWARD TAYLOR: TO ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now make a further statement on the position of Govan Shipbuilders Limited.

Mr. DOUGLAS: TO ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement regarding the shipbuilding industry on the Upper Clyde

Mr. MILLAN: TO ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now make a statement on the application of the Marathon Manufacturing Company for financial assistance at Clydebank.

The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to answer Questions Nos. 36, 50, 54, 57 and 58.
Govan Shipbuilders Ltd. and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions have reached an agreement on working practices which is now being considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
A further £1 million is being made available to the liquidator for working capital, pending the takeover by Govan Shipbuilders Ltd.
Negotiations have been concluded also between J. & C. Harrison Ltd., Govan Shipbuilders Ltd., the U.C.S. liquidator and my Department to enable work to start on two 26,000 tons deadweight bulk carriers at the Scotstoun yard. The trade unions concerned have promised their full co-operation in the timely construction and delivery of the ships. Details of the financial commitments entered into are being published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
I have invited Mr. Harbin of Marathon to come to London for further discussions about the possible acquisition by the company of the Clydebank Yard, and he hopes to come this week.

Following are the details:

Financial commitments and liabilities undertaken in respect of two bulk carriers for J. & C. Harrison Ltd. and Gowland Steamship Co. Ltd. and in the provision of working capital to the liquidator.

In his statement of 29th November, 1971, the Secretary of State referred to the provision of guarantees to ship owners and the liquidator and to the provision of working capital to the liquidator.

Guarantees

2. Negotiations have been concluded with J. & C. Harrison Ltd., Govan Shipbuilders Ltd., and the U.C.S. liquidator to enable work to start on two 26,000 tons deadweight bulk carriers in the Scotstoun yard.

3. The completion of both orders at the original contract prices will involve Govan Shipbuilders Ltd. in a construction loss estimated to total £2 million. It has agreed to sustain this loss within the total of up to £17 million allowed for this purpose in the Hill Samuel report (Cmnd. 4918).

4. The liquidator was prepared to adopt the two U.C.S. contracts only if he were assured that no extra cost would fall upon the U.C.S. assets. The Government have agreed, there fore, to fund the initial costs of construction in so far as these costs are not covered by payments received from J. & C. Harrison Ltd. These sums will be recovered later from Govan Shipbuilders Ltd.

5. The Government have agreed to issue an extra statutory credit guarantee to the ship owners to enable them to obtain the necessary finance and have also undertaken in the event that the ships are not delivered by certain dates, to refund all future payments made by the owners.

Working Capital

6. A further loan of £1 million will be made available to the liquidator for working capital on the same terms as those applying

to the loan of £1·5 million announced to the House on 29th November, 1971.

Sir T. Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the promises to abandon unjustifiable restrictive practices go far enough? Further, to what extent would the provision of £35 million of taxpayers' money, largely on social rather than commercial grounds, be justified if these promises were not kept?

Mr. Chataway: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, considerable importance has been attached by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the matter to which he refers. The agreements now reached between Govan Shipbuilders Limited and the unions are, therefore, being studied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to ensure that they are acceptable to the Government.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: With reference to the current discussions, is it not a fact that there is no precedent for assistance to a single firm under the Local Employment Acts on the scale which has been talked about? If that be so, will my right hon. Friend give particular attention to ensuring that proper procedures are followed for the monitoring of sums provided to ensure that they are used for the purposes for which they are allocated?

Mr. Chataway: Any assistance which is made available to the Marathon company will be under the general powers available to my Department, according to the criteria which would apply to any company. Under the Local Employment Acts, there is a monitoring procedure, and this will certainly be followed.

Mr. Douglas: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that in the discussions with the Marathon company an invitation will be extended to Mr. Dannie McGarvey, of the boilermarkers'union, who has played such an important part in inducing this firm to come to the United Kingdom?

Mr. Chataway: My right hon. Friend has made clear that he applauds the part which was played by the gentleman to whom the hon. Member refers in visiting a number of companies in Texas


which were in contact with his Department.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend take it that the news of the two new orders will be greatly welcomed on Clydeside, and that most Glasgow Members greatly appreciate in any event the splendid and energetic work which he and his colleagues have done to bring the matter at least to this stage? Is my right hon. Friend hopeful that the Marathon deal will come off?

Mr. Chataway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. I am anxious to try to reach an agreement with the Marathon company if one is possible.

Mr. Millan: As regards the Marathon company, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a decision was expected some weeks ago and that the delay in coming to a conclusion has given rise to some anxiety? May we be told that the discussions on which he is now entering will be the final discussions, and that we can expect a decision—a favourable decision very soon?

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. The proposals have only recently been put to the Government, and Mr. Harbin has made clear that he at least considers that there has been no untoward delay.

Dame Irene Ward: I make no comment about the amount of money which is going to Clydeside, but may I have an assurance that we shall have the same treatment on Tyneside, where we have had much less restrictive practices and so forth? Further, will my right hon. Friend take it that, if the amount of money which is going to Scotland is set against the £50 million which is, apparently, all that shipbuilders in other areas are to receive, I can only conclude that we are not getting a fair proportion?

Mr. Chataway: It is too soon for me to comment in detail on my hon. Friend's question——

Dame Irene Ward: I want my hon. Friend to comment.

Mr. Chataway: —but I shall certainly take note of her view.

Mr. Small: Will the Minister remember that the whole idea on Clydeside is

to keep the four yards in existence, and will he bend his mind to that full endeavour?

Mr. Chataway: I have already told the hon. Gentleman of the action which we are taking in relation to the Marathon company.

Oral Answers to Questions — M.V."INVICTA" (INCIDENT)

Mr. Russell Kerr: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the events which occurred in the British ship "Invita" at Calais harbouron Sunday, 16th April, whether he intends to raise with the French Government the unprovoked action of French police in assaulting British citizens and destroying their property, and whether he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): On the 14th April the French Embassy in London informed the organisers of the expedition that their group would not be allowed to land at Calais.

Mr. Kerr: Why?

Mr. Royle: Despite this, the organisers went ahead with their plans. The French police boarded the "Invicta"on arrival at Calais. Members of the group were prevented from landing and their banners were confiscated. As far as I am aware, no one was hurt, and no request for British consular assistance was received.

Mr. Kerr: Is the Minister aware that the 25 or so gendarmes who invaded this British ship in Calais harbour did so without permission of the captain, without any provocation, visual, vocal or physical, from the British group aboard, who were to be the guests of the mayor of Calais, and they were themselves being definitely provocative in tearing posters from the hands of British subjects as well as, in some instances, destroying substantial property?
Will not the hon. Gentleman persuade his colleagues to withdraw their stupid attempt to enter the Common Market, and at least have the common decency to inform the British people that their civil liberties and their rights of peaceful protest are under heavy attack?

Mr. Royle: Vessels in port come under the jurisdiction of the port authorities. There are no legal grounds on which we could dispute the action of the French police in boarding the ship. We have received no complaints from either the captain or the owners.
Perhaps I might congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the publicity he has obtained for his anti-Market views. I am informed that the group began to demontrate on deck as the "Invicta" prepared to dock. [HON. MEMBERS: "So what?"] I am informed also that some were shouting the phrase "A bas Pompidou". As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have always held him in the highest respect, but I invite him to imagine his own reaction if 200 foreigners arrived in his constituency during an election campaign with the intention of demonstrating on a matter of concern to him.

Mr. Wilkinson: I was a passenger on the M.V. "Invicta" yesterday——

Mr. Kerr: Yes, I saw the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wilkinson: —and, having seen the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr, Russell Kerr) may I suggest that he would have been a not very dangerous invasion upon French soil? They were certainly an even more jocund company when they reached England than they were when they reached France.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH RAILWAYS (DISPUTE)

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
I have to confirm to the House that the industrial action threatened by the three railway unions began at midnight. There is already an extensive and serious dislocation of rail services, and this is bound to get worse.
On learning of the unions' decision last Wednesday evening to reject the pay offer of the British Railways Board and to ban overtime, rest-day and Sunday working and to work to rule, I thought it right to invite them to meet me immediately so that I could hear at first hand of the issues which had led to deadlock. In

the succession of meetings that followed, the three unions constantly reiterated their demand that their claim for an immediate increase in pay amounting to 14 per cent. of the wages bill would have to be met if the threat of industrial action were to be withdrawn. They also rejected my suggestion, to which I had secured the board's agreement, that use should be made of the industry's agreed arbitration procedures.
On Saturday, in the light of this rejection, the board suggested that a chairman should be jointly appointed for further discussions between the board and the unions to consider the representations of the parties with a view to determining the remaining issues between them and to award. The unions agreed to this suggestion and, together with the board, invited Mr. Alex Jarratt to accept this rôle.
Meetings under his chairmanship took place throughout yesterday. In the course of the discussions the board proposed that its present offer should be accepted from 1st May and offered to meet the unions' claims from 1st January, 1973. This was not acceptable to the unions.
Under the agreement which had provided for his appointment, it then became necessary for Mr. Jarratt to make an award.
Recognising the board's preparedness to increase the total offer with effect from 1st January; bearing in mind the expressed concern of the unions at the period which would elapse before this extra money became available; and recognising the board's concern for the need to limit the increase in the wages bill in the current financial year, the award proposed an immediate increase in the board's current offer from 11 per cent. of the wages and salaries bill to 12 per cent. and a further increase on 1st January which would have met the unions' joint claim in full.
The unions subsequently informed the board that the award was unacceptable.
I met the three unions again in the early hours of this morning. They made it clear to me that they were only ready to accept an offer which met their claim in full immediately. I felt bound to tell them that I, and I was sure the public, would find it difficult to understand why


the award—the form and author of which they had freely agreed—had not provided a settlement.
In these circumstances I have thought it right to ask the General Council of the Trades Union Congress to meet me at 5 p.m. this evening.

Mr. Prentice: The whole House will want to share in the regret that a settlement has not been reached in the dispute, particularly in view of the widespread hardship this will cause to large numbers of people, including—and this point is often forgotten—the railwaymen themselves and their families. [Interruption.] That point is often forgotten.
We must get the record straight on what the Secretary of State said. At the end of his statement he referred to the fact that a lot of people would find it difficult to understand why the award had not been agreed. I hope he will accept two facts which I hope are not controversial in themselves. Mr. Jarratt, who did such a magnificent job in such a short time, was accepted in advance not as an arbitrator by either side but as a chairman who might produce an acceptable award. He was not accepted as an arbitrator whose award should be binding. Also, the proposed settlement would have meant the railwaymen would have to wait eight months for a basic £20 minimum wage for the lowest paid, a figure which is already regarded by the TUC as the minimum wage.
We are mainly concerned with the rôle of the Government in all this. On this side we would find no complaint with the Secretary of State personally for the way in which he has tried since Thursday morning to bring the two sides together. But was not his whole effort, which was in the best tradition of Ministers of Labour and Secretaries of State for Employment, sabotaged by the arrogant and partisan speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[Interruption.]—on Thursday evening, which has been echoed by other Ministers in speeches since then?
Does it not become absolutely clear that the task of the moderates on the executives of the three unions was made infinitely more difficult by that speech and that there might have been, without that speech, an acceptance either of

arbitration or of Mr. Jarratt's award? Were not the prospects of that made virtually impossible by the Chancellor's intervention, which seemed to be playing politics with the hardship of the travelling public?
Will the Secretary of State say where he goes from here? We would want him still to make every effort to find a settlement, and in particular at five o'clock this afternoon to ask the TUC for its good offices in attempting to reach a settlement. Does he intend to do that? Will he above all avoid using the powers of the Industrial Relations Act, because if he uses those powers it will only confirm the impression that the Government are more interested in playing politics than in reaching a settlement?

Mr. Macmillan: First I must entirely reject the remarks of the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) about the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the effect that he alleges it to have had on the negotiations. One of the difficulties was to persuade the unions that the Government were in earnest in asking them to use the procedures which they have agreed; namely, arbitration. My right hon. Friend made it clear that the Government were in earnest in this.
The right hon. Gentleman's second point concerned the rôle of Mr. Alex Jarratt, the chairman. He was appointed by the Railways Board and the unions together, and they agreed that his rôle would be to consider representations to the parties to the dispute with a view to determining the remaining issues between them, and to award. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was proved right when it turned out that in this last session there was no move from the unions, although the board made a further concession.
As to the £20 a week minimum, the unions have always demanded that any increase in the lowest basic rate must be fully reflected in all the other rates and that the differentials must be preserved throughout the wages structure. They have not proved willing simply to put up the bottom end of the wage scale alone. The board on the other hand has expressed its willingness to increase the


minimum rate to £20 but was not willing to see such an increase escalated throughout the whole structure immediately. Its present offer would have established a minimum rate of £20 and would have preserved the differentials from 1st January, 1973. The board's offer has always included a minimum earnings guarantee which would ensure that no railwayman would ever receive less than £20·50 a week.

Mr. Bradley: As one of the trade union representatives who met the right hon. Gentleman in the early hours of this morning, as he put it, I consider that he has been unfair in describing the situation of the trade unions in this matter. Would he agree that the claim on which they are vesting is considerably modified from that which was originally submitted and that a number of concessions have been made and a reasonable compromise could now be reached?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the British Railways Board reached the point with the trade unions three weeks ago when it asked them to put in a claim for what they would actually settle for. That was done, and to that extent we are, therefore, asking for the minimum and not the maximum, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. It is not true to say—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now correct what he said—that the unions have proved immovable in this matter. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman agree that the current claim for a basic rate of £20 a week is modest, and one which the British Railways Board recognised the justice of yesterday? Therefore, is it not unrealistic to suggest, with the Rent Act coming along, that it should be deferred until January, 1973?

Mr. Macmillan: I was not asked by the unions to agree that the claim for a minimum rate of £20 a week was a modest one. I was asked to agree that the claim reflected fully in all the other rates, with the differentials preserved throughout, was a modest one, which is a very different matter. Initially the board was presented with a claim for an un-quantified substantial increase in wages. In the course of the negotiations each union at different times mentioned different figures at which it would be prepared to settle. The present claim, on which I said the unions were being

adamant, was the first jointly agreed by the three unions and was presented to the board some weeks ago. The hon. Gentleman said it was wrong to say they were immovable. Well, they were. Their agreement to the appointment of Mr. Jarratt, in the terms I have already described to the House, carried an implication that this figure was negotiable, but they flatly refused to negotiate.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who have among our constituents many agricultural workers find it difficult to regard a minimum wage of £20 a week as too little, and believe that the refusal of this compromise will lose the railway workers the respect and good will of the public?

Mr. Macmillan: I am not sure whether the circumstances of different classes of wage-earners are so comparable as to justify the kind of comparison my hon. Friend has made, but I repeat that, regardless of the figures, the negotiators' attitude was that once having put their claim into negotiation they refused to negotiate.

Mr. Bagier: Does the Secretary of State agree that the railwaymen's productivity record stands second to none, and that the minimum requirement of £20 a week is reasonable, bearing in mind that before the miners' settlement the minimum wage of a railwayman was only 70p behind that of a miner's minimum? If the railwaymen are granted what they are asking for they will be £3 a week behind that rate, so does not that show that they are agreed that the miners were a special case? If the right hon. Gentleman will not say that the Chancellor's speech was harmful, will he say whether it was helpful?

Mr. Macmillan: I think that as a result of my right hon. Friend's speech the union negotiators concerned began to see that the Government felt quite strongly that the process of arbitration which was part of their agreements should be accepted. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's other point, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill), comparisons are a little invidious. Agricultural workers have shown an extremely high increase in productivity. If the hon. Gentleman is going back to the question of the £20 a week


minimum rate, I must reply that there is no question of that being the claim. The claim was for the £20 a week minimum with that increase fully reflected throughout all the other rates—with the differentials maintained throughout, which is a great deal more than a mere £20 a week for the minimum wage-earners.

Mr. Hunt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the message I am getting from my constituents is that they warmly welcome the plain speaking of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, which has meant that for the first time the voice of the silent but long-suffering majority is being heard in an industrial dispute in this country? Will he also bear in mind now that the go-slow has started that, while there are many who are prepared to put up with a great deal of hardship and inconvenience, what they will not tolerate is, having put up with that hardship, then to see a surrender to unreasonable demands.

Mr. Macmillan: The whole country must view the hardship, the difficulty, the dislocation of industry and effects on the jobs of people in other unions with great sadness and apprehension. I take my hon. Friend's other points.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the emotive language and the speeches made not only by the Chancellor but by many other senior Ministers completely hardened the unions' attitude? I happen to be an honorary national officer of one of the unions concerned, and I know that that was so. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures being bandied in the national Press and by British Rail about the earnings of railwaymen include rest day working, working in their normal day off, overtime payments and Sunday duty? If the Government want to be really fair, they should publish the facts.

Mr. Macmillan: The union representatives made it clear to me that they did not quarrel with the figures in the British Rail advertisement. As to the negotiators' attitude hardening, I must say that I could not detect that it got any harder after my right hon. Friend's speech than it was before. I repeat, on the question of the minimum rate, that it was not a mere basic £20 a week that was being talked

about. The consequences of that were to be reflected throughout the differentials.

Mr. John Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of this country fully understand the serious consequences of the dispute and that they are looking to him to protect them from groups and individuals who are selfishly seeking their own self-interest?

Mr. Macmillan: I hope that the attitude of the public and the House can be confined to the dispute. It is the right and duty of the Government to protect the people against the consequences of the dislocation to which it will give rise, but I hope this will not lead us into too hasty judgments of other groups of individuals.

Mr. Mikardo: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an employee of British Rail who occupies a house owned by British Rail for which he pays a rent of £2·85 a week was recently informed by the Southern Region that it has fixed a fair rent for his house of £10·75 a week? How will he pay that nearly £8 a week increase in rent, or anything like it, out of the pay increase which British Rail has offered?

Mr. Macmillan: He will have the rebates under the Act—[Laughter.] I do not find it anything to laugh at that the Government have introduced legislation to give a rebate to people who cannot afford to pay their rents. The level of rent that British Rail charges its employees is a matter for the management.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In answering a request to publish the facts, will my right hon. Friend make sure that everybody is fully acquainted with the distinction between basic rate, minimum earnings and possible earnings—[An HON. MEMBER: "And hours of work."]? Secondly, will he do something to try to clarify the somewhat paradoxical situation which seems to have arisen whereby when people work to rule total chaos follows? Should we not change the rule book?

Mr. Macmillan: The Government have a great deal of sympathy with the sentiments expressed in the last part of my hon. Friend's question. It is extremely important that the facts are put before the House and the country.

Mr. Orme: Could not the amount that has divided the unions and British Rail be bridged if the Government were to show some genuine inclination to bridge it? Will not the British people judge the inconvenience against the political attitude of the Government? What is the Minister doing to restart the negotiations? The unions are prepared at any time to sit around a table and negotiate.

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is a little self-contradictory. He has said on the one hand that I should restart negotiations and on the other that there is no possible outcome to them except to admit the union's claim in full.

Mr. Orme: I did not say that at all.

Several hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate the matter now.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

NEW LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS IN ENGLAND

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Before calling Amendment No. 1, I wish to say that the Chair has been in difficulty about the selection of Amendments to be called on Report. I have provisionally selected a great many in the belief that it is reasonable that hon. Members should have the opportunity of putting to the whole House matters which only a limited number were able to develop in Standing Committee. But this is only a provisional selection and it is very much dependent on hon. and right hon. Members exercising proper restraint on the length of their speeches. I hope that arguments will be put succintly, for that will enable me to continue this policy of selecting as many Amendments as I can.
We are now to discuss Amendment No. 1 and the following Amendments:

No. 12, in page 193, line 41, at end insert—

Hampshire

District (a)

The administrative county of Isle of Wight.

District (b)

The county borough of Portsmouth.

In the administrative county of Hampshire—

the borough of Go sport;

the urban districts of Fareham, and Havant and Waterloo;

in the rural district of Droxford, the parishes of Bishops Waltham, Boarhunt, Curdridge, Denmead, Droxford, Durley, Hambledon, Shedfield, Soberton, Southwick and Widley, Swan more, Upham and Wickham;

in the rural district of Petersfield the parishes of Clanfield, Horndean and Rowlands Castle.

District (c)

the county borough of Southampton.

In the administrative county of Hampshire—

the boroughs of Eastleigh, Romsey and Lymington;

the rural district of New Forest;

in the rural district of Ringwood and Fordingbridge the parishes of Breamore, Burley, Damerham, Ellingham, Fordingbridge, Hale, Harbridge and Ibsley, Martin, Rockbourne, Whitsbury and Woodgreen;

in the rural district of Winchester the parishes of Botley, Bursledon, Fair Oak, Hamble. Hedge End, Hound and West End;

District (d)

The boroughs of Aldershot, Andover, Basingstoke and Winchester;

the urban districts of Alton, Farnborough, Fleet and Peters field;

the rural districts of Alton, Andover, Basing stoke, Hartley Wintney and Kingsclere and Whitchurch;

in the rural district of Droxford the parishes of Corhampton and Meonstoke, Exton, Warnford and West Meon;

the rural district of Petersfield except the parishes of Clanfield, Horndean and Rowlands Castle;

the rural district of Romsey and Stockbridge except the parishes of Ampfield, Chilworth, North Baddesley, Nursling and Rownhams and Romsey Extra;

the rural district of Winchester except the parishes of Botley, Bursledon, Fair Oak, Hamble, Hedge End, Hound and West End.

No. 72, in page 200, leave out lines 27 to 30.

No. 279, in page 200, leave out line 28.

No. 280, in page 201, line 12, at end insert:
Isle of Wight
The administrative county of Isle of Wight.

Mr. Mark Woodnutt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we to be allowed to have Divisions on Amendments Nos. 279 and 280?

Mr. Speaker: I am not deciding that at this stage. I shall have to see how things go. I want to select as many Amendments as possible and give the maximum number of hon. Members an opportunity to have Divisions, but we shall have to see how we get on. I will do my best to meet the requests of hon.

Members, but I cannot go any further in promising Divisions other than for the Amendments actually selected. I have now selected Amendment No. 1, and other Amendments are to be discussed with it. The issue of having Divisions will arise later.

Mr. R. Bonner Pink: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 5, at end insert:
(5A) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, in any order made under paragraph 1 of the said Schedule 3relating to one or more districts in the new County of Hampshire, the Secretary of State may designate any such district to be a metropolitan district for all purposes other than the purposes of sections 196 and 197 below and, where he does so, shall in the Order provide that in relation to that district the said county shall for the purposes aforesaid be taken to be a metropolitan county.
(5B) Any such order may contain such incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions as appear necessary or proper for bringing the order into operation and giving full effect thereto.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for including Amendment Nos. 12, 279 and 280, for these are alternative proposals and alternative solutions for Hampshire's problem. I thank the Minister for his patience and courtesy in receiving our deputation and our representations.
I ought to make it clear straight away that the cities are not opposing the Government on the whole Bill. They are opposing, in effect, the allocation of functions in Hampshire. They accept that two tiers are desirable for some functions, particularly for planning. It will be recalled that nearly 10 years ago the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, together with Hampshire County Council and the Minister, initiated the Buchanan Study. Following that, they set up a joint planning Committee to decide the structure plan for South Hampshire. So we have already accepted to some extent a two-tier system in Hampshire.
Hampshire is about 50 miles square and nearly 1½ million people live in it. It is accepted that the population will touch the 2 million mark within 20 years. It is the first or second largest non-metropolitan county in the country and it is the fastest growing county. The population is not evenly distributed. One million people live in the densely populated and industrial belt along the South


Coast, about 40 miles wide. It extends from the Sussex border to the New Forest and is about 10 miles deep—I include the Isle of Wight in the figure. Two-thirds of the population live in about one-sixth of the total area.
The coastal belt is based on the great ports of Southampton and Portsmouth. There is a definite community of interest based on each port. The area is divided by the River Hamble: on the west people look to Southampton; on the east to Portsmouth. The community of interest is centred on the docks in Southampton and the Royal Dockyard and the Navy in Portsmouth.
In Portsmouth there are some 20,000 jobs in the dockyards and more in naval establishments, store yards and repair yards, which are dependent on the Navy and which are spread throughout the area. Not all the people employed in those establishments live in Portsmouth and many of them do not want to do so, preferring to commute daily to and from their work. There is heavy rush hour traffic at Ports bridge and Eastern Road, which are the only two roads in and out of Portsmouth. Large numbers commute daily.
The situation is even worse in Southampton. The same heavy traffic occurs at rush hours on the Go sport Ferry. The surrounding area is largely dependent on the two cities for shopping, entertainment, sport, amenities and services, and further education. People come in to do their important shopping which they cannot do in the smaller towns and villages around the cities. They come for their theatre, Bingo, dance halls and their sport on Saturdays. They come in in their thousands to see "Pompey" play at home. They also come in for swimming baths and golf. We also provide the large general hospitals that serve the whole area.
Perhaps the most important feature is further education. In Portsmouth we have a polytechnic with 4,000 students, a number which will increase to 7,000. The technical college has 4,000 students. There is a college of art and architecture and a teachers' training college. In Southampton there is the university and similar colleges of further education.
Each city has a population of about 200,000. The areas around them have

a population of some 200,000 or 300,000, all with the same community interest. These areas form the dormitory areas of the cities. They also have a considerable amount of light industry, largely supporting the industries in the cities.
In the north of the county there are other fast-expanding areas round Andover, Basingstoke and Aldershot These are dormitory areas with light industry. There is also the Army town of Aldershot. In between the area is largely rural. There are considerable towns in this area: Lymington, Lyndhurst, Winchester, Alton, Farnham, Petersfield, Ringwood and Fordingbridge The problem is to provide a satisfactory form of local government for these different areas of the county.
A number of solutions have been proposed. For example, Maud proposed two all-purpose authorities, dividing the county down the centre, basing them on two cities. The Labour Government proposed a metropolitan county. The present Government have proposed a non-metropolitan county. None of these solutions is entirely satisfactory. But I think that all would agree that the Isle of Wight, physically separated from the mainland and only connected with it by boat and hovercraft, must be administered separately, however the overall organisation of local government is settled. The Amendment proposes, in effect, a metropolitan district for the Isle of Wight. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) in his Amendments proposes a separate county. I will leave him to develop the arguments.
The coastal belt is, without doubt, a textbook case for two metropolitan districts. It is densely populated, industrialised, clearly defined and has also a clearly defined community of interest. I am confident that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development will agree with that. In Committee my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of Slate made great play with the opposition from surrounding areas. He stressed that the councils representing only 400,000 people in the cities which were in favour of a metropolitan county and metropolitan districts were opposed by councils representing 1 million people, which either opposed these proposals or remained silent.
That, of course, is perfectly true. But in a case like this I doubt whether the councils really represent the views of their electorates. I believe that they are not considering the real interests of their ratepayers but are trying to maintain the status quo. I do not, for example, think that they considered how much easier it is to get to Portsmouth than to Winchester—10 miles instead of 30, with plenty of trains and buses to Portsmouth but with no direct train or bus to Winchester. It may be all right for those with cars, even though it takes an hour or one and a half hours instead of half an hour, but what of those who have no cars?
Havant has consistently opposed Portsmouth's housing. It complains of the consequent cost for schools, drainage and other services, and is now complaining that Portsmouth has made no provision for the overspill from Leigh Park. Would it not be better for Havant and Portsmouth to be in the same metropolitan district so that these became common problems? Havant complains, too, that it will no longer be responsible for education and that the county will take over again these duties. Would it not also be better if it were part of a local metropolitan district?
What does the opposition of these surrounding areas really amount to? It is principally fear of domination by the cities. This, of course, is nonsense because the areas outside would on a population basis have three councillors for every two city councillors. I think the truth is that these areas are simply taking a parochial view and preferring to be big fish in little pools rather than little fish in a big pool.
As to the remainder of the county, I would think it is at present perhaps not really suitable for a metropolitan district because it is too spread out and too rural. But it is changing rapidly and probably will have become suitable for a metropolitan district within the next 10 or 15 years. The present proposals of the Government mean, of course, that this area with a population of 500,000 is not suitable. Thus, an area with twice as many people will have to suffer accordingly and many of the most important functions will be administered remotely, particularly education, social services

and libraries I am convinced that these services are far better administered more locally. This Amendment proposes a compromise, in effect giving the Minister power to make orders accordingly to form a hybrid county with two metropolitan districts for the coastal belt, and one for the Isle of Wight, and non-metropolitan districts for the remainder. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in Committee agreed that Hampshire is a special case. I would go further and say that it is a unique case and needs a unique solution. That is why the suggested powers in the Amendment are limited to Hampshire. We do not feel that they are needed elsewhere.

4.15 p.m.

I sum up. The Isle of Wight must have a separate administration of some kind. The coastal belt is ideal for division into two metropolitan districts. The remainder of the county is more suitable for division into non-metropolitan districts. The Amendment provides a satisfactory compromise. It would provide good local government for Hampshire, and, unless there is some obscure financial consideration of which I know nothing, the only other objection that I can see is that it does not propose a nice clean tidy set-up dear to the heart of officialdom.

But this is no real objection. The Ministry will have to deal with both metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties. Hampshire County Council can perfectly well deal with metropolitan and non-metropolitan districts. I am sure that my Amendment would enable local government reorganisation in Hampshire to be of genuine benefit and service to the people of Hampshire, not just to the people who live in the cities. I am sure that this commends itself to my hon. Friend.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: We have all read "A Tale of Two Cities". If the Government's proposals go through as they are in the Bill, most people in our area will regard them not as a tale of two cities but as the rape of two cities. These proposals would destroy completely the character of the two great cities. Amendment No. 12 was the main Amendment on this matter put forward in Committee. It was withdrawn after Government opposition. Amendment No. 1 is a fall-back


Amendment—a second best for which we have to settle if nothing better can be achieved.
I believe that the solution to the problem in Hampshire is to make Hampshire a metropolitan county and to divide it into four metropolitan districts, one based on Southampton, one on Portsmouth, one on the Isle of Wight and one on the remainder of Hampshire. The originalMaud proposals advocated two autonomous areas for Hampshire, one based on Southampton and the other on Portsmouth. This had advantages and disadvantages. For example, it was a pity that as an after-thought the Isle of Wight was tacked on to the Portsmouth area, about which the Isle of Wight was not pleased. But there were also advantages. as I have said.
Then came the Labour Government's White Paper, Command 4276, which would have made South Hampshire a two-tier, metropolitan system. The Bill concentrates all effective power in the hands of the county and virtually turns Southampton and Portsmouth into parish councils. These great cities as they are at the moment, administering all their functions as county boroughs, will have little left to do as city councils if the Government's proposals go through.
Why is there a special case for making Hampshire a metropolitan county? First, its population of 1·4 million is such that it is the biggest non-metropolitan county of all. Not only that, but its population is growing rapidly. The White Paper issued in February 1970 by the previous Government said:
Population and industry in the area have been expanding exceptionally fast; this growth is likely to continue and even accelerate.
We all know that South Hampshire is probably the most rapidly expanding area in the country.
I am certain that in, say, 10 years' time, when this is looked at again, everyone will see that there is a case for a metropolitan county. All we are asking is that this should be anticipated and that it should be made a metropolitan county now so that we do not have to reorganise everything in 10 years' time. As things stand, Southampton will have 16 seats and Portsmouth 15 out of a total of 106. We shall be completely lost in this great new county.
The Government's White Paper of February, 1971, said:
Local authority areas should be related to areas within which people have a common interest—through living in a recognisable community, through the links of employment, shopping or social activities, or through history and tradition…above all else, a genuine local democracy implies that decisions should be taken—and should be seen to be taken—as locally as possible.
Let us look at the first part of this, that local authority areas should be related to areas within which people have a common interest. The new county will be based on Winchester, which is a great city with a long history and fine tradition. But it is very much a county town. On the other hand. Southampton—and I speak for Southampton because others will speak for Portsmouth—is a bustling commercial centre. A few years ago we even won the Daily Mirror award for the most go-ahead town in the country. It is based on an expanding port with a great variety of interests. We are essentially an urban community with all the problems of an urban community, education, social services, housing and so on. I submit that a county in which decisions will be made in the county town of Winchester and in which the two cities will have 31 seats out of 106 will not be devoted to the future development of Southampton and Portsmouth.
Secondly it is said that decisions should be seen to be made locally. Given the proposed system, nearly all the essential decisions affecting the daily lives of people in Southampton—whether elderly, working people or children—will be made in Winchester, 12 miles away. We recognise that major planning decisions involving road networks and so on have to be taken in a wider context. We accept that these matters should be part of a metropolitan county responsibility. Already there is the South Hampshire Study Group which is doing this sort of job with Hampshire, Southampton and Portsmouth represented.
When it comes to things such as personal services, welfare and education, I submit strongly, having had long experience in local government before entering this House, that decisions on these matters should be made as locally as possible. I would not claim that we have a better education service in


Southampton than in Hampshire. I taught in Hampshire for 12 years and I know the tremendous advances that have been made. But essentially the educational problems in Southampton are different from those of the county because it is an urban community. The same applies to decisions affecting other personal services such as the elderly and the handicapped.
It is terribly important that the centre of authority should be easily accessible. What happens at the moment if an old person ora parent in Southampton has a problem which cannot easily be solved is that he goes along to the local town hall which we call the civic centre. It is in the centre of the town and bus services run near to it. What will happen under the new system is that people will have to go to Winchester, and many will not be able to do so. It will be a long journey for them.
There is, too, the importance of a councillor knowing his area. I can go round Southampton now, look at something and say, "I thought of that; it is something which is working". I can look at something else which is not working and think, "Why on earth did I think of that?" Imagine an education Committee serving a county of 1·4 million people. Suppose I served on the education Committee and a problem arose concerning Aldershot. At present if a problem arises about a school, I can go and look at it, for I know where it is. I will not go to Aldershot. I know nothing about it. We have just had a communication from Aldershot which is unhappy that the Aldershot and Farnborough Divisional Executive is to be split and the whole thing is to be put under Winchester. It is not only the big towns which are unhappy.
The important point here is remoteness of administration. I taught in Hampshire for 12 years. We used to refer to Winchester as "the office". In my 12 years of teaching I saw the chief education officer only three times and the man in charge of secondary education at Hampshire twice. There is a different situation, with closer contact between parents, schools and administration in Southampton and I am sure in Portsmouth, too.
Our proposal for a metropolitan county with four metropolitan districts would ensure that decisions about personal

services were made locally. Obviously the metropolitan districts have greater power than the ordinary county district. We have laid out certain boundaries in the Amendment. We put down what we think is the most logical but I would not stand by them 100 per cent. For example, if the New Forest decided that it would rather be administered from Winchester than from Southampton, I would be only too happy to concede that. I do not want the boundaries to be rigid. This is something that can be brought about by agreement. It is the principle which I ask the Minister to consider.
This proposal has the support of nearly all the major organisations in Southampton. I have letters on my files from many of them and perhaps I may quote a paragraph from the letter sent by the Health Executive Council. It says:
The Executive Council wish to support strongly the contentions of the Southampton and Portsmouth City Councils that important public services such as education, social services and health should remain under a more localised control by area authorities which already have the experience and understanding of the needs of their areas. In the opinion of the Southampton Executive Council this will not be possible if one large local authority for the whole of Hampshire takes over sole control of the services, and will in fact lead to deterioration in the efficiency of local personal services.
I emphasise that last sentence. It is sometimes argued that size makes for greater efficiency but there are certain areas where this is not necessarily so and social and personal services represent one of them. The local branch of NALGO strongly supports this, as do many trade unions and the Trades Council. I noticed an interesting letter from Baroness Sharp in The Times today giving full support for our proposals.

4.30 p.m.

I have had over 1,500 letters—and I know that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill) has had an equal number—from people in Southampton supporting this proposal. This shows the strength of feeling in the city. Both political parties on the council support it. Both Members of Parliament for Southampton—one Labour, one Conservative—support it. The only fly in the ointment is a small group known as the Itchen Conservative Association, which feels that it is its duty to support the Government even though it is against


the interests of the people of Southampton. That is its affair, not mine.

My main criticism of the Bill is that it is county-orientated and disregards the problems of the cities. I have spoken mainly of Southampton and Portsmouth, but places like Plymouth, South end and Blackpool are also adversely affected by the Bill for much the same reasons as I have given, and I hope that their representatives will join me in asking the Government to think again about their proposals for these areas.

In conclusion, I wish to quote a comment made by the Prime Minister at a local government conference in March, 1971:
We are determined to maintain so far as possible the deep-rooted loyalties on which our Local Government was founded in the past.…No one in their right senses is in favour of change for change's sake.

The people of Southampton and Portsmouth have shown that they want their areas to be metropolitan districts, retaining their responsibility for education and social services. I ask hon. Members to support the Amendment.

Mr. Woodnutt: The most important thing that the hon. Member for Southampton. Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) said was that bigness did not necessarily lead to greater efficiency. I hope that the Minister will remember that when he is considering the position of the Isle of Wight which, if I succeed in my efforts, will be the second smallest county, next to Powys, in the country. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Itchen Conservative Association. I wish that he had not said that, because I can assure him that that association, in all its deliberations and decisions, acts in the best interests of Itchen and it would most certainly oppose the Government, as I will if necessary, if it did not get what it thought was best for its constituency.
I wish to direct my observations mainly to the Amendments in my name, Nos. 279 and 280, the effect of which would be to remove the Isle of Wight from the County of Hampshire and to introduce it as a separate county in the Schedule of the Bill between Humberside and Kent. If the Minister would prefer me to put it among the W's, between West Sussex and Wiltshire, instead of the I's, I should have no objection if we could confine our argument to that narrow point.
I have discussed at length Amendment No. 1, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink), and Amendment No. 12, in the name of the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen, with hon. Gentlemen and hon. Members opposite and with friends in the Isle of Wight, Portsmouth, Southampton and other parts of Hampshire. I very much wish that I could support both of them, and especially the Amendment of the hon. Member for Itchen, which would give metropolitan district status to the Isle of Wight. That would be far better than what is proposed in the Bill. Since the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) has signed that Amendment, it seems that it has the full weight of the Opposition behind it, however weighty that opposition may be, and the idea of a quid pro quo deal has its attractions for me.
Alas, I cannot support either Amendment No. 1 or Amendment No. 12. First, Amendment No. 1 is not sufficiently definite. It says that the Secretary of State "may" decide to make a metropolitan district. That decision would be optional rather than mandatory. I wish to be absolutely definite about the matter. Secondly, it would hybridise the County of Hampshire if some districts were metropolitan districts and others were not. That would put Hampshire in appalling difficulty. It might even hybridise the Bill, which would put us in even greater difficulty. Thirdly, if Hampshire is treated in this way, why not everywhere else? The Minister would be placed in this difficulty if the Amendment were passed. Making the Isle of Wight a metropolitan district is far short of our requirements. It would not solve the question of our isolation.
Another argument against the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Itchen is that it would create considerable difficulty in northern Hampshire—a district of 900,000 people which is easily the biggest in population of all the four proposed metropolitan district councils. I cannot claim to have studied the matter in detail, but I should be very doubtful about whether the natural resources per head of population would be adequate.
Therefore, I have decided to go it alone and to concentrate on my Amendment, which asks for full county status


for the Isle of Wight, because nothing less will meet the island's unique geographical situation. I appreciate all that was said in Committee by hon. Members on both sides, including the right hon. Member for Deptford, in support of the Isle of Wight's case. It was apparent to me when I spoke on Second Reading that the whole House sympathised with and recognised the unique situation of the Isle of Wight as a land mass—the only land mass in the United Kingdom separated from the mainland by five miles of water. I was impressed when I read the report of the debate in Committee when an Amendment similar to Amendment No. 12 was being debated. The situation of the island was recognised by every Member who spoke, including the Minister.
I remind my right hon. Friend of two things in support of my Amendment. The first is an historical fact, namely, that in 1888, when county councils were established, in spite of massive protests from the Isle of Wight, including those of a famous predecessor of mine, Sir Richard Webster, who later became Attorney-General, and in spite of the conclusive argument presented to the Minister and the Government against merging the Isle of Wight with Hampshire, the Government made the Isle of Wight part of the County of Hampshire. But this uneasy and unhappy marriage ended in divorce a year later, in 1889,because Isle of Wight representatives just would not make this long and tedious journey, including a boat journey—and nor would Hampshire members from Winchester to the Isle of Wight. There was a story current at the time of one Isle of Wight farmer, the only Isle of Wight representative who used to turn up at the Castle in Winchester to council and Committee meetings, being stopped by a Hampshire member who did not recognise him and asked, "Be ye Hampshire?" The Isle of Wight farmer said, "Be oi?", then he used a vulgar term with which I would not embarrass the House, "Oi be Isle of Wight". This is again the most popular after-dinner story in the Isle of Wight. Today, although communications have marginally improved, the hazards of this sea crossing are much greater, since there is much more traffic in the Solent, including hovercraft.
My second point is that immediately after my right hon. Friend published his White Paper, he had the courtesy and kindness to see me when I made representations to him. Within 48 hours he agreed and stated publicly that he recognised the Isle of Wight's position as unique and that in its exceptional circumstances he would give it exceptional treatment. Furthermore, he kindly received a deputation of local government heads from the Isle of Wight and set up a working party of his officials and Isle of Wight officials. They spent no less than 20 hours in discussions, at the end of which the Isle of Wight officers were left with the impression, although it was not expressed in so many words, that it was the opinion of all that nothing short of county status would provide efficient local government, under local control in the Island.

4.45 p.m.

I know that it was my right hon. Friend's intention—I am sure that it still is; he would not make a promise without implementing it—to hive off various county functions of Hampshire to the Island under some special arrangement. But Clause 101does not meet this need, because education and social services, which are the main services, cannot be delegated. Anyway, I do not believe that it is right to delegate any powers to a local authority without giving it the right of, and the responsibility for, raising the finance. If there were a way to hive off certain county functions to the Isle of Wight, Hampshire would be left with so few functions that representation on that authority would be a complete farce.

We are assured that a population of 250,000 is the minimum requirement to provide the resources for county functions, and that therefore an island with 109,000 is too small. It is nonsense to pick an arbitrary figure from the air and to say that no authority can work efficiently unless it has 250,000. I say this with experience of more than 20 years in local government, seven of them as Chairman of my county's Finance Committee.

When Lord Redcliffe-Maud produced his report, I entered into correspondence with him immediately, contesting the idea of a minimum figure, After a good deal of correspondence, he conceded in a letter to me that the Isle of Wight was a case


on which reasonable men could be expected to differ.

I cannot accept that Powys in Wales, with a smaller population than the Isle of Wight and a rateable value of £2½ million, compared with the Island's £5 million, can manage on its own as a county while the Isle of Wight cannot.

What do we mean when we talk of "resources"? They have to be related to the needs of the area. It is not only total resources which are important but the resources per head. I can prove the adequacy in the Isle of Wight by applying the Government's own formula for assessing rate deficiency grant. This shows that, of 58 counties in England and Wales, the Isle of Wight receives less grant per head of population than 53 other counties. In other words, only four counties receive less grant per head than the Isle of Wight.

This surely means that, on the Government's own formula, the resources of the Isle of Wight are very high per head of population and that its needs, compared with those of other counties, are relatively low. To prove this, one has only to look at the past record. We in the Island were one of the first counties to achieve education for all. We have only one secondary school which has not been rebuilt since the war, and our change to comprehensive education was among the smoothest and quickest in the country.

Our development of social services on the Seebohm basis was equally rapid. We were the first authority to complete with the aid of Birmingham's computer, a complete survey of the need and the requirements of the chronically sick and handicapped. Our provision to meet the new legislation in terms of aid for the chronically sick and handicapped in 1972–73 is greater than that of the whole of the County of Hampshire.

If it is argued that there are doubts about future resources being adequate for future needs, I remind the House that the population of the Isle of Wight and its rateable value are growing at a far faster rate than the rest of Hampshire and the rest of the country. There is no doubt about the adequacy of resources, but another factor transcends every argument, and that is the Island's isolation from the mainland.

Undoubtedly this is the major argument against absorption by a mainland

authority because the democratic principles cherished by us all would no longer apply in the Isle of Wight. We should have to travel to and from the Island to Winchester, a difficult journey taking at best seven hours, including an allowance for one hour's Committee meeting, and at worst in excess of 11 hours.

Does my right hon. Friend believe that it would be possible to persuade elected representatives of the calibre we need in local government to undertake this enormous amount of travelling. Would a young chartered accountant, surveyor or artisan be prepared to spend eight or nine hours a day travelling from Back of the Wight to Winchester for a Committee meeting which might last one hour? No one worthy of his salt would give up this amount of time for such a short period of effort.

I asked the Isle of Wight Council to produce—and I have deposited it with the Minister today—a 14-page brochure setting out these transport difficulties. It gives the Minister details of the various parts of the Island and the best methods of reaching and returning from Winchester. This aspect is the greatest weapon in our armoury. I trust that he will study this brochure carefully because it is clear that if we become part of Hampshire we shall lose the franchise. I give only one example. An active member of our County Council represents Niton, Back of Wight, and lives there. For him to get to a Committee meeting in Winchester by the best possible methods of travel would involve an outward journey of three-and-a-half-hours and a journey back of another three-and-a-half, allowing for waiting time. With a one-hour Committee meeting, he would be involved in a time loss of eight-and-a-half hours. This cannot be expected of anybody. We shall finish up with layabouts representing us, people prepared to give up a whole day to enjoy the attendance allowance and collect the expenses.

The Minister has said that he wishes to encourage community life between town and country. There will be no community life shared by Winchester and the Isle of Wight because in the winter the last boat leaves so early that nobody can spend an evening in Winchester without staying overnight.

Can one imagine an Isle of Wight representative being offered or prepared


to accept the chairmanship or vice-chairmanship of a mainland authority, an appointment requiring constant attendance at county hall, calling there in the morning for informal discussions and taking a prominent part in the social events of the county?

I remind the House that the Isle of Wight is the only major local authority in England and Wales which is based on one island. There are no road links and it is not infrequently cut off in the winter and always during the night. To join it with Hampshire is the geographical equivalent of joining Somerset with Monmouth, and there is no equivalent of the Severn Bridge across the Solent.

If the Isle of Wight does not secure special treatment, it will be the only island to be treated in this way. The Bill excludes the Scilly Isles and I understand that the Orkney and Shetland Isles are likely to be treated in a special way. The Channel Isles and the Isle of Man are independent—yet the Isle of Wight has more resources per head of population than any of them.

The Minister may be afraid of creating a precedent by giving the Isle of Wight county status. I assure him that he would not be doing that. The Isle of Wight is unique as a separate island, divided from England by five miles of water.

I appeal to him at least to promise to consider all the new figures I have put before him in the 14-page brochure showing our transport difficulties. I urge him not simply to say "No" emphatically today. I have inquired about the possibility of dividing the House on this issue. I would not wish to do that and I would do it only if I did not receive an assurance from the Minister of his intention at least to keep an open mind.

Mr. Frank Judd: I admired the gesture of brave independence on the part of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt), and I found myself in a good deal of agreement with many of his arguments. However, I know I speak for hon. Members on both sides when I say that we were disappointed that he felt unable to throw himself in with our campaign.
We must ask ourselves at this stage in the debate whether we really want to achieve results in terms of last-minute

changes in the proposed legislation or whether we simply wish to get on the record our innocence in these affairs. I suggest with great respect to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight that he opted for the second course rather than the chance of achieving a really effective change.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) referred to the fundamentally important point that we are dealing not only with the largest non-metropolitan county, with its great metropolitan content, but also with an area of inevitable dynamic, economic and social growth.
It behoves the House to take this opportunity of introducing a structure of local government which will be ideally suited for dealing with progress in the area in advance of this situation, rather than trying in 10 to 15 years to face what occurs and finding ourselves involved in an agonising debate as to how to devise a method to catch up with events which by then will have overtaken us. It is extraordinary that so far the Government have refused to see that here is a great opportunity to plan in advance of events and to create an almost ideal form of local government for this area.

5.0 p.m.

Naturally, I welcome the fact that the Portsmouth City Council has belatedly seen the good sense of the previous Labour Government's proposals for the reorganisation of local government: would that it had seen it earlier, but I do not complain about that. But, even if we have been a little late under local leadership in bringing this campaign to a head, the lateness of the last important approaches to the Government should not lead Ministers to underestimate the strength of local feeling. This is brought home very forcefully to any hon. Member who cares to look at the situation.

In Portsmouth I have seen trade unions, individually and collectively, speaking out against the proposition contained in this legislation and arguing those points which we are nowputting forward. I have seen businessmen, individually and collectively, arguing equally strongly. Professional organisations, amenity societies and the main political parties are agreed. Even more important, an overwhelming number of individuals are making their views known to their Members of Parliament.

I suggest that whatever the Bill is intended to achieve it will certainly not achieve a qualitative improvement in the nature of local democracy. It is not good enough to talk of improved and rationalised local government administration. Are we talking about democracy, or are we talking about the interest of bureaucrats? If we are talking about democracy, and if we take democracy seriously, it is clear that the present proposals are marching firmly in the wrong direction.

Few people in a large, inevitably relatively impersonal city like Portsmouth feel as it is that the centres of decision-making are as near to them as they would like. The Guildhall could almost be described as being in the moon for many of the citizens, but if the Guildhall is in the moon, Winchester will be in another galaxy altogether.

There is no direct public transport between Portsmouth and the proposed new administrative centre at Winchester. One can imagine the difficulties confronting a less agile senior citizen or a harassed mother with her children who wanted to consult the oracle at Winchester. It might be asked why should such citizens want to go to Winchester as there will be a perfectly adequate area office in Portsmouth which they can approach; but this is an extraordinarily patronising and arrogant approach to be taken by people claiming to be democrats, because if we want genuine democracy in local government it is the centre of decision-making that should be accessible and not the office with delegated powers from the imperial headquarters in the country capital.

The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight referred to the acute worry he has about finding the right calibre of, particularly, younger people coming into local government, if they are to be expected to devote time in travelling back and forth to Winchester, with all the difficulties that involves. The Isle of Wight has special difficulties, but they are bad enough in Portsmouth. This is not vague theory. I have talked in Portsmouth with some of our younger dedicated councillors, who have said to me in words of one syllable that, while they are willing and anxious to service the community in local government, it is quite

out of the question for them to consider giving up the time that would be involved in trying to provide a useful service for the community as far away as Winchester. This, therefore, is not a problem of the future, but a problem that is already with us. It is not a party political point, because I known from conversations with members of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party that exactly the same consideration would apply to their own younger people anxious to serve.

More serious even than that, we have to look at the problem in the context of an overall crisis in local democracy; the paradox, in some senses, which is there, because on the one hand we have unrivalled expertise available amongst the administrators, yet, on the other hand, the real truth of local government as it stands today is that, increasingly, the ordinary citizens feel no involvement in or connection with this theoretical expertise which is there to assist them in overcoming their frustrations.

Very often I find that the very people who complain articulately of the inadequacy of the environment in which they live are those who just do not see what could be done if they were prepared to mobilise support in terms of resources for the implementation of relevant programmes. If this is already true in large cities such as Southampton and Portsmouth, how much more true will it be for citizens of Portsmouth and Southampton in the proposed new context. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink) referred to the theoretical expertise away in the county capital of Winchester.

I am convinced that the only basis for the future of healthy democracy in local government is decentralisation, involvement and a rekindling of real grass-roots democracy. The alternative, and there are no halfway houses here, is the increasingly authoritarian coercive approach to local government which I am sure all hon. Members will want to reject.

When I look at my own city, the thought often strikes me that, while there may be a certain degree of identification by people with the concept of being citizens of Portsmouth, the communities with which they really identify are the immediate communities in which they live


—places like Paulsgrove, Cosham, Landport, Stamshaw, Sonerstown, Portsea, Northend and Farlington. Communities such as those are what we should really be discussing. If we want to make a success of the future of local government, what we should be discussing is how to give communities of this kind real powers to assert themselves as communities collectively; yet when we look at what is proposed in the Bill we find that it is in exactly the opposite direction that we are being asked to move.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen, I strongly recommend support for Amendment No. 12, but if we have to fall back on Amendment No. 1it will certainly be better than nothing. I realise that it may be argued that administrative problems would be created because the county would be the education and social services authority for part of and not for all the county. This would put the county education and county social services Committees into a special position, and their expenses would be chargeable against only part of the county. But I cannot believe that these administrative problems are insurmountable.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South has already referred to the strength of local opposition, and certainly it has been vociferous. This is an understandable phenomenon and not uncommon in such circumstances, but it should be made clear that the proposals for a metropolitan county and metropolitan districts would not be an extension of the cities but the creation of new authorities in which the cities' representatives would be playing a useful but not a dominant part. The cities are ready to sink their identiy in more sensible and coherent metropolitan districts.

I hesitate to say so, but I believe that there is a rather more grave charge to be answered by Ministers. I have heard it suggested in Portsmouth by people not necessarily themselves intimately involved in party political activity that this legislation is a gigantic plot by the Government; that for the health of local democracy there must be a possibility, wherever this can be seen, of a change of political administration from time to time. This helps to shake up the system and ensure

that everything functions as well as it should. The current administration is kept on its toes by the thought that there may be another administration waiting to step into its shoes, and the opposition is kept on its toes by the hope that one day it may be in control.

In Portsmouth and Southampton this is so at present. In Portsmouth we have not seen enough changes in administration, but we have seen some changes. What some are now saying is that the Government have deliberately contrived a system which will sink any hope of meaningful political change within Portsmouth and Southampton in a diluted county in which there may be an inbuilt, ongoing assured Conservative majority for years to come.

Ministers ought to take this on board and demonstrate how they believe that they are advancing proposals objectively considered with a real commitment to democracy as distinct from a rather sordid commitment to the perpetuation of Conservative majorities.

Mr. James Hill: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink) on the very cogent way in which he moved the Amendment. I support him fully. I also support the forcible way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) put the case for his constituency. All of us on both sides of the House know how charming and considerate my right hon. Friend has been throughout the months of dealing with the Bill. He has clearly realised the strength of feeling involved. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) and myself have been inundated with letters, postcards and requests from practically every association within the city. They have pointed out their fears, particularly the fear that they will lose their identity under this huge Bill.
My right hon. Friend may be able to look at Amendment No. 1and see some slight relief for its proposers. But if he does not, even at this late moment, surely he will realise that Hampshire is an area in which growth will outdistance that of all other areas in the United Kingdom.
The key issue is whether the responsibility for effective government of an expanding urban economy and society


can be shouldered by the type of organisation proposed in the Bill. Perhaps I, too, realise that Amendment No. 12 will not, at this late stage, stand much chance of consideration. But we in Hampshire are asking for a metropolitan county, not because we wish to be insular but to leave the county authority free to devote its energies and resources to the strategies for development of the whole area. The district authorities would be effective local government units with ample resources to discharge at local level responsibilities for major services, particularly the personal services such as education, social services and housing, in a coherent and integrated personal structure accessible and understandable by all the local ratepayers.
If my right hon. Friend cannot be persuaded to full metropolitan status—surely a point of view that he must have considered many times—Amendment No. 1may be a happy compromise. It proposes a district council, at the discretion of the Minister and in the interests of the Government, which could have the powers of a metropolitan district council.
In Committee on 14th December, 1971, the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) said of the Southern Evening Echo:
That newspaper is normally very friendly to the Government and the party it represents. On the whole, as one would expect, it tends to sympathise with the work of the Government, and with the Local Government Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman made the very powerful point that the newspaper had said:
The Government are on the verge of a major mistake with their otherwise commendable efforts to modernise and reform local Government. Their new Hampshire is too big for one county authority to handle…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 14th December, 1971; c. 441.]
The right hon. Gentleman used a very neat phrase when he described the South of England as "the Texas of England." I rather like that description—although we have not sufficient pull to compete.
5.15 p.m.
On the same day, 14th December, my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary said that it was the largest and fastest growing of all the non-metropolitan areas. That is true. We in Hampshire are fully aware of the problems of the Isle of Wight but, most of all, we are aware of

our constituents' complaints. We feel that the Minister made a very great impression on the combined Southampton and Portsmouth Action Committee. The Committee came away with the thought that the Minister was perhaps thinking on similar lines to the Committee. I have no such optimism. Today, charming though my hon. Friend will be when he winds up the debate, we shall have the same inflexible statement.
At a meeting of representativs of the churches in Southampton, a body whose opinion should be taken into account, the representatives said:
The central point of our consideration was the achievement of a balance between human concern and administrative and economic realities in the creation of a new system of local government."—
no one can argue against that.
Against the background of contemporary trends in society, it was agreed that human concern was a matter of urgent importance, and should be positively strengthened by any future local government administration. After a careful survey of the alternatives, it was agreed that the Metropolitan County solution offered the best chance of keeping decision-making as near as possible to the people affected by the decisions.
So much for the representatives of the churches in Southampton.
The representatives of the trade unions in Southampton said:
The new proposals, if put into effect, will very largely destroy the benefits. As you are aware many of the services in which our members are employed will come under the control of the County Authority which is bound to introduce a remoteness which in turn will cause delays and frustration and will certainly be damaging to the present standard of industrial relations.
Of course, that was written before the rail go-slow occurred.
The National Association of Local Government Officers said in a statement that it agreed with the contents of a leaflet which stated:
Decisions shall be made, and be seen to be made, locally. Local authority areas should be related to the area in which people have a common interest. Local Government should take account of patterns of development and travel.
I appreciate that all this has been said before in the debate, but it is worth repeating.
Finally, if in the light of this further debate the Minister fails to measure up


to the strong case and views of Southampton and Portsmouth and completely ignores the possibility of doubling of population and growth in the next 20 years, he must make it plain that in all probability the 10-year review Clause in the Bill will correct the matter and give metropolitan status to Hampshire in 1982.

Mr. David Mitchell: Amendment No. 12 proposes the creation of a metropolitan county in Hampshire and the linking for administrative purposes of local government of such diverse areas as Aldershot, Andover, Basingstoke, Winchester, Alton, Petersfield and Romsey. I suspect that the hon. Member who propounded the Amendment had no consultations with the representatives of the local authorities in, for example, Basingstoke, Andover, and Aldershot. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) says that there have been no consultations. I do not know if hon. Members who have spoken in support of the Amendment have had such consultations. I assure the House that no representations or approaches have been made to the hon. Member for Basingstoke.
A glance at a map will show how vast is the area under consideration, how wholly unlike is the area in the south of the county for which metropolitan status is sought from the northern area, how much more scattered it is, how much greatest the distance is, and how much smaller the villages are. In view of this, it is incomprehensible that hon. Members have made this proposal without even consulting those in the area concerned.
My guiding principle in the matter of the reform of local government is that we should seek to get decision making as close as possible to the people. Provided that the service can be administered reasonably economically, the nearer to the people it is, and the smaller the units are, the more I shall like it. I greatly support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt), who represents an area where this principle is put into effect.
We are legislating for the benefit of the electorate. We must consider how the electorate reacts to its nearness to or remoteness from the point of decision making. There is a low turn-out at

county council elections, whereas at borough council elections there is a much higher turn-out. In other words, people at borough council level feel that they are participating in decision making in their locality.
I speak as a "channel" through which many constituents raise problems. My experience is that borough and rural district councils are flexible, are always helpful, and are prepared to reconsider a case if new circumstances are brought to light or if requested to do so. Such councils are always prepared to heed the human factor. With the best will in the world I cannot say that these are the predominant characteristics of a county council.
It is therefore vital that we should keep as much decision making as possible to local authorities at local district level. It would be intolerable to link Andover, Aldershot, Basingstoke and Winchester in one lower-tier authority. I am determined to speak up for the independence of Basingstoke and its area and, therefore, to oppose Amendment No. 12.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Mr. R. C. Mitchell rose—

Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will find that there is a certain amount of help coming from me if he is prepared to wait for a few moments.
Amendment No. 1 seeks to leave the north of the county, with its local district councils, administering its local functions, and it seeks to delegate in the south of the county education, social services, libraries, and youth services to the local people. I do not believe that this would do any harm to those in the north, and it could do much good to those in the south.
I seek the assurance of my hon. Friend the Minister that this will avoid the error of the past, where the county borough did not have any financial contribution to make to the county council but incurred expenditure for the county council in having to provide roads to Southampton and Portsmouth. We must be clear that that major problem does not arise. Assuming that it does not, there is much to be said for delegating these services in the south of the county.
Flexibility and a preparedness to reconsider are not generally characteristics


of county councils. Far too often the automatic reaction of county councils is to defend the initial decision and to stick by it come hell or high water. The size of the organisation at county level means that the taking of decisions is very much in the hands of officers, which accounts for the complaints there have been by those involved at county council level that they have little opportunity to influence decision taking. I therefore support Amendment No. 1.
The Minister's advisers will tell him, "Amendment No. 1is a hybrid one. The area it would produce would be part metropolitan and part ordinary county. That would be a strange animal. There is nothing in the book to fit that. The Amendment asks for something strange and unusual".
We are all in Parliament—this includes my hon. Friend the Minister—to fit patterns to people and not to try to fit people to neat blueprints. For that reason, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will see his way to accepting Amendment No. 1 and advising the House to reject Amendment No. 12.

Mr. David Price: My justification for intervening in this debate is simply one of longevity. Of hon. Members present I am the longest serving Member from either the county or the two cities under discussion.
I have listened with interest and not without sympathy to the case deployed by my colleagues from the Cities of Portsmouth and Southampton. However, I cannot support the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), when he attributed what I might call the conspiratorial view of local government reorganisation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. On the Hampshire County Council there is no such thing as a Conservative group, although there is a Labour group. Some of us think that the county council is the worse for that. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's remarks bear no relation to the facts.
The kernel of the argument of the supporters of these Amendments lies in the proposition that new Hampshire should be a metropolitan county rather than a non-metropolitan county; this is spelt out in Amendment No. 12. I well understand why the two cities have put forward the

Amendment. They are two county boroughs which are naturally upset at losing their county borough status. They also have a good record as local authorities under the old local government dispensation. Naturally they are anxious to preserve as many of their old powers as they can under reorganisation, and metropolitan status would enable them to do so.
Further, speaking as a county Member, I do not believe that this proposal is simply a last-ditch stand by the councillors and officials in the two cities who wish to preserve as much as they can of their former power. I am convinced that what hon. Members have said generally reflects the views of many of the citizens of Hampshire and Portsmouth. I therefore hope that the House, and in particular my colleagues from the two cities, will not think me unsympathetic to their case. Nevertheless, I must advise the House to reject it.
5.30 p.m.
I speak for the old administrative county of Hampshire, and particularly for my own constituency which circumnavigates the great city and port of Southampton. All the representations that I have received, contrary to that received by the hon. Members for the two cities, has been bitterly opposed to the proposition before us this evening. Even in terms of new non-metropolitan district councils all the representations that I have received and continue to receive are totally opposed to any incorporation in the City of Southampton. In truth I have received one letter in favour of incorporation in the City of Southampton, and that has come from a very clear constituent of mine who is a Southampton city councillor and resides in the county.
I ask the Minister to consider the population, and here I take up my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell). We are talking of a current population of 423,000 people in the two cities. The population of the Isle of Wight is 105,000.

Mr. Woodnutt: No.

Mr. Price: These are the Registrar General's figures for 1970. In the administrative county of Hampshire we are talking of 993,000 according to the 1970 census. In the pamphlet, "The Two


Cities Case", Portsmouth and Southampton claim that the two cities and southern Hampshire are socially and economically distinct from central and northern Hampshire. Their case has been fortified in a letter in The Times today from Lady Sharp, who is no person to be taken lightly. Therefore, one must concede that there is some substance in such a distinction.
However, I submit that the distinction is relative and not absolute. In the years 1961–70 the population of the administrative county of Hampshire grew by 30 per cent., while in the same period the combined population of the two cities grew by barely 1 per cent. That suggests that the Hampshire County Council, and indeed the second tier authorities in the county, are not without experience of urban growth or of industrialisation. Indeed, I would argue that in the constituencies of Basingstoke. New Forest and Eastleigh there has been more technological development than there has been in either of the two cities.
So far as one can talk today about a Solent industrial area, it is based on the Fawley oil refinery and the whole complex of petro-chemicals which lies in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) rather than in the port and city of Southampton. This is reflected in my own constituency surrounding Southampton. My electorate has grown by 35 per cent. since 1955, whereas the electorate in Itchen and Test has grown by barely 3·5 per cent. in those years.

Mr. James Hill: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the reason for the growth in his area is that the majority of the building has taken place just outside the cities?

Mr. Price: My hon. Friend is virtually conceding my case. The basis of his argument is that we in the county are simple country bumpkins who do not understand these problems.
If we take education, the whole weight and burden of the expansion of South Hampshire has been carried by the Hampshire Education Authority rather than by those in the cities of Southampton and Portsmouth. I say this in no disparaging way. They are very good authorities. But it is necessary to get this right. The

idea that Southampton and Portsmouth dominate South Hampshire and, therefore, should have all the power does not recognise what has been done in the last 20 years both by the administrative County of Hampshire and more particuarly by the subordinate local authorities which have had to deal with the heat and burden of the day.

Mr. Woodnutt: Would my hon. Friend not agree that a lot of technical work has been done in the Isle of Wight—for example, Black Knight and the hovercraft?

Mr. Price: My hon. Friend never misses a point. I shall conclude my remarks with something which will be of comfort to him. Suffice it to say that I regard the Isle of Wight as a special case.
The missing link in our discussion—I am sure that my hon. Friends from the cities will agree—is that we do not know the final proposition for the structure plan for South Hampshire. Therefore, we can only speculate. This important information is not available to us on the back benches. The geography of the proposed Southampton metropolitan district illustrates the fallacy of a simple north and south division of Hampshire. If my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest catches the eye of the Chair, I am sure that he will say that the proposed metropolitan district of Southampton is frankly a nonsense. To go from the old county borough of Southampton and include the whole of the New Forest right out to the Dorset and Wiltshire borders and say that there is an identity of interest between Burley and Bitterne is a nonsense.
As I have already indicated, in my own constituency the feeling in the parishes—and I should tell the House that my parishes are not nice little rural parishes; they are expanding communities—against incorporation in Southampton is so bitter that I hesitate to mention it. It is extremely strong. When the City Fathers of Southampton came on a good will mission to the parish of Hamble they confirmed this fact to any who may have been doubtful about the opposition to incorporation.
Therefore, I do not believe that there is any case for Amendment No. 12. Indeed, we who surround Southampton know that that city has always had


imperialist ambitions in the county, and especially on the western side of Southampton Water lying partly in my constituency and partly in the constituency of New Forest. The Fawley oil refinery and the industrial areas is a wonderful prize in terms of rateable value for any authority. I do not blame them for wanting it. The fact is, it has been there for a long time. Amendment No. 12 would play havoc with local government reorganisation in the County of Hampshire.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, I have rather more sympathy for Amendment No. 1. Clearly, it will be argued that it would be administratively inconvenient to allow Portsmouth and Southampton to be treated separately and given metropolitan district status while all the other new district councils had not got metropolitan district status. The Minister will probably point out that it is a bad precedent for two former county boroughs in a non-metropolitan county to be so treated. Nevertheless I am convinced that some concession which would be appropriate and helpful ought to be made to the two cities.
I have in the past, speaking on local government reorganisation, argued strongly, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, for getting as many functions down to second-tier authorities as possible. Although I am certain that my hon. Friend will not be able to concede Amendment No. 1 fully—I could almost write the brief for him containing the grounds why it should be rejected—I suggest that between now and a later stage he should consider whether education might not be an appropriate concession to give to Southampton and Portsmouth. These two cities have a good record as education authorities. It is not necessary to the successful functioning of Hampshire because Hampshire has coped in the last decade with probably the greatest growth in child population of any county in England. Between 1959 and 1969, whereas the school population of England and Wales rose by 12·3 per cent., in the administrative county of Hampshire it rose by 45·3 per cent. So no one can argue that the incorporation of Southampton and Portsmouth education authorities is necessary to the success of Hampshire as a local education authority.
I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Minister will think again about that, just as I very much hope that he will give further thought to the eloquent plea of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight for separate treatment for the island.
We have these three different interests—the administrative county of Hampshire, the two cities, and the Isle of Wight. I do not know what the House will finally determine, but that we shall have to work more closely together is absolutely obvious. I hope that any further debates we have, though there is little time left, will be conducted, as this has been, in a spirit of good will, and that we do not grizzle at one another, let alone fight one another. We shall have to work together.
Perhaps the House will forgive me if I end on this somewhat platitudinous note. Many years ago, in a factory in Texas, a place with something of the spirit native to all of us in the three areas, I saw a small notice.
Hats off to the past. Coats off to the future.

Mr. John Silkin: In his very moderate opening speech, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink) said that Amendment No. 1 was exceptional because the situation was exceptional, and that he and the majority of his supporters had no quarrel with the Local Government Bill. That is practically the only sentence on which I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, for my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have many quarrels with the Bill.
I suppose that our deepest quarrel is that there is no thread of logic or principle lying behind the Bill. It is a collection of provisions for special circumstances. Almost every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate, and a valuable debate it has been, has talked about this as an exceptional circumstance. Even the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price), in a learned and brilliant exposition of his point of view, said that this was an exceptional area.
The truth of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that out of one knows not how many Amendments you have today selected 167, all of which say that the areas affected are exceptional; and 28 of those are Government Amendments. This is the


trouble. One can fit no principle whatever into the Bill. One has to deal with everything on its merits.
It would be absurd not to pretend that we are in a difficulty regarding Hampshire. I should like to be able to say that our Amendment No. 12 gave the perfect solution to the problem of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. I cannot say that. I can only say that, on balance, I think that it offers a rather better situation than that which exists at the moment. It is the best we can suggest. It is something. So long as we have this patchwork-quilt system of local government reorganisation, so long shall we have these difficulties.
The Minister claims that the old warfare between town and country disappeared with the Local Government Bill. I can only say that in the speeches of the hon. Members for Eastleigh and for Basing-stoke (Mr. David Mitchell) I seemed to hear the distant thunder of battles long ago. The hon. Member for Eastleigh gave us the text,
Hats off to the past. Coats off to the future.
I wondered whether the coats were being taken off in preparation for further battles. This is not as easy a problem as it appears, and that is why the noble Lady, Baroness Sharp wrote as she did to The Times.
Since no one else has done so, I shall quote those words of the noble Lady which put the position at its clearest:
The inappropriateness of the Government's proposals for the two cities stems from the decision to keep the present county of Hampshire virtually intact despite the fact that it simply is not a social entity. What it does is to combine what is essentially a south-facing metropolitan county (south Hampshire) with what is essentially a north-facing non-metropolitan county (mid and north Hampshire). The two have very little connection; and, again, the new county council cannot be expected to give to the metropolitan problems of Portsmouth and Southampton the concentrated attention they need.
5.45 p.m.
As the hon. Member for Eastleigh pointed out, the writer of that letter is someone to be taken seriously. Obviously, we do not have to agree with everything she says, but the first woman permanent secretary in Britain is not a person to be lightly disregarded. Those are her views. Moreover, I think I am right in saying

that she does not come from either Southampton or Portsmouth or from the other interesting areas which form the new proposed county, so I think that her view must be taken as that of an independent broker. The House need not take the view of a simple Londoner like myself. But we must take very carefully the opinion of the former permanent secretary at what was the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) said that this might be called a tale of two cities. If Dickens had ever written such a book, it might be called a tale of two ports, for that also lies at the back of the discussion. Portsmouth and Southampton are the two greatest ports on the South Coast, with the possible exception of Plymouth. I shall not go into that now. They are certainly the two greatest ports on the South Coast that we are discussing at present.
These two cities have great traditions and a great history, and, above all, a great social tradition. It is no secret to the House that I have always believed that education should be set on a greater scale than is proposed in the Bill. I make no apology for holding that view, though the House has decided otherwise. But, if I were minded to take the other view, and if I were selecting examples of education authorities which deserved to remain, those would be the two which I should choose above all others, because they have a fine history and reputation.
Portsmouth has 1,000 trainee teachers, it has its 4,000 full-time students, it is, apparently, still developing its technical college, its college of design and art. Southampton has its university and its technical college. Portsmouth has its fine social services, with a staff of 1,200, and a budget of £2 million. These are not matters lightly to be set aside.
What the Minister has to prove to us is that, if they are lumped into the new Hampshire, their experience and expertise will overflow into that county. I doubt it. I do not think that it can happen that way. The problems are so different.
It is a little unusual for one hand to have three sore thumbs, but this one has—Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight. Everyone has been sympathetic towards the Isle of Wight. The Minister


will be sympathetic, too. He will say, "No" to the whole thing, but I promise that he will be most sympathetic.
The Isle of Wight's position is worth considering. I do not entirely agree with the reasoning of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) that, because Powys is a county under the new proposals, the Isle of Wight should be, too. Powys has a larger population. In fact, there are no metropolitan districts in the Welsh proposals, and, if one can produce a rather neater arrangement, I think that that is better. But the Isle of Wight certainly ought to be an independent authority on its own, and I do not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman if, out of local patriotism, he wants county status. He would have everything he wanted from metropolitan district status, but that is by the way. Certainly, that would fit much better into Amendment No. 12.
I agree with much that was said by the hon. Member for Basingstoke, and the hon. Member for Eastleigh, too, very subtly and cleverly wooed me on the subject of district (d). There is a great deal of technology there and a great deal more urban land than one would imagine by looking at the map. I accept all this and I also agree that it is a bit straggling. But short of Amendment No. 1 it is the only possible division which could be made if Hampshire was a metropolitan county.
I have said that I do not regard Amendment No. 12 as being the best possible solution in the best of all possible worlds. But it is the only solution that can deal with the particular problem of Hampshire at the moment. That is not to say that if it started in this way it would not be changed. There is, after all, the Boundary Commission. As this vast metropolitan area grew in population as it will—I believe it is growing in population as in other resources at a greater rate than anywhere else in the country—the Boundary Commission would make new divisions for the future but at least they would have something to divide.
If the Minister says "No" to the Amendment, as I suspect he will, he is still faced with an exceptional case. I come to my fall-back position, and the main suggestion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South that we make a dif-

ference here and that we introduce the concept of the metropolitan district into the concept of the non-metropolitan county. But the hon. Member must not be so selfish. This is an interesting suggestion and an interesting Amendment. I know that he dos not want to annoy the Minister or to worry him with precedents because of the difficulties. But the Bill is so illogical that precedents should not worry him. It is riddled with precedents righting precedents from one Clause to another. He need not be so selfish about it because what applies to Hampshire might apply in other areas. Why not go the whole hog? We might use one ear to make a silk purse. It is a splendid suggestion which would overcome a lot of difficulties in other areas where there clearly ought to be a metropolitan district organisation in what from any other point of view ought to be a non-metropolitan county.
The Minister may want to go that far and say, "I will consider this because it is something new". I wish I had thought of it, but I did not and neither did the Minister. If he would agree to consider it I would certainly urge my hon. Friends not to go into the Division Lobbies. But one way or another the question of Hampshire is far too important just to be left in abeyance.
I will close with some further words from Baroness Sharp. She says:
It is surely worth some trouble to ensure that these two great cities, each with immense problems to contend with, have the form of local government, within the Government's framework, which best suits their needs—and which the present proposals certainly do not give them.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): Before going into the merits of the case I wish to deny the allegation which was made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) that there was some form of gerrymandering in the Bill as it relates to Hampshire. I am supported by the fact that four of my hon. Friends spoke against the Bill and only three hon. Members from the Opposition side spoke against it. If the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West had been on the Committee he would have seen that I turned my bullet-proof waistcoat back to front throughout the Committee stage because there was just as much opposition from behind as from in front. It made


the Committee stage more entertaining than it might otherwise have been.
The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) said that there were no principles in the Bill. I thought we had set out the principles fairly clearly in the White Paper which preceded the Bill, the principles upon which we were dividing the country into metropolitan counties and non-metropolitan counties.
In the White Paper at paragraph 30 we said about metropolitan counties:
In the Government's view a metropolitan type of structure would be appropriate
then we set out the six areas which do not include South Hampshire and continue:
These six areas need to be treated as entities for purposes of planning, transportation and certain other services; at the same time the districts into which they divide would all be big enough in population and resources, and sufficiently compact in size to be responsible for education and the personal services, as well as the more local functions.
No one can say that Hampshire fits that as a whole. It is not compact in area. In the next paragraph of the White Paper we said:
In other parts of the country there are big towns, now county boroughs, with distinguished records of service to the community in the fields of education, child care, welfare and the other personal social services.…The metropolitan pattern is suitable only where a county is divisible into districts all of which are populous and compact.
On that principle I must advise the House that Amendment No. 12, which suggests that we should have a metropolitan county for the whole of Hampshire, could not fit in with the reorganisation of local government which we envisage and which has, whatever the right hon. Member for Deptford says, some principle behind it.
This kind of local government reorganisation, the metropolitan county, varies from the West Midlands where it is essentially one built-up area split from another by a valuable and jealously guarded but narrow green belt, to West Yorkshire where there is a pattern of substantial towns separated by a whole network of open space. But although it varies from these extremes still one could not fit Hampshire into that kind of structure. All the six we suggested as metropolitan counties have the characteristics in common that they can be

divided into areas which are compact enough and make sensible districts which are not too remote and are populous enough to sustain education and the personal welfare services in modern conditions at the district level.
One thing about all the six areas we have suggested is that in spite of the considerable problems about the precise extent of the metropolitan county, in each case there is a wide measure of agreement that these areas are apt for metropolitan treatment. It was certainly shown by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) and others that there is no unanimity of desire for the County of Hampshire to be a metropolitan county. I have received many representations from urban districts which might be included in any one of the groupings of Southampton or Portsmouth expressing their opposition to being so included.
We recognise that there are two great county boroughs which have had the greatest success in developing. Their growth has been rapid over the past years but the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West exaggerated the point about growth a little. I think it was he who said that the population of the area would double in the next 20 years. My figures do not go as far as that. In the South-East Strategy it is said that this area of South Hampshire will not double in the next 20 years but will grow by one-third. Undoubtedly, it will grow and develop, but we must not exaggerate that.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Judd: I do not think that the Minister will find when he reads Hansard that I used the word "double". My point was that already the size and pressures were great enough to warrant the sort of proposals we put forward in the Amendments. By the time the growth is of the order the Minister himself suggests, the problems will have overtaken the structure to which he is Committed.

Mr. Page: If we had any other metropolitan county consisting of two big and populous districts, the hon. Gentleman would have a good argument, but here we have two, and only two, areas that could be metropolitan districts. If we make them metropolitan districts, we leave a whole county outside.
May I consider what we are discussing from two aspects, beginning with the structure and size of district which would have to be formed from Southampton and Portsmouth if we accepted them as metropolitan districts. Each would have to be in the 400,000 population range. The grouping of Southampton and the areas round it would be about 429,000 and the grouping of Portsmouth and the areas around it would be 498,000. That would leave the rest of Hampshire, apart from the Isle of Wight, as 431,000. So we have roughly a grouping of three thirds, each comprising about a third of the population—Portsmouth, Southampton and the rest of Hampshire respectively.
This sort of division shows that both Portsmouth and Southampton in the groups in which they like to think of themselves, or at least in which they have been put in the Amendments, would have a substantial representation in the county. There is no question of being governed at a distance by Winchester. They will form one-third each—again,I am disregarding the 100,000 population of the Isle of Wight—of the new Hampshire county. So it cannot be said, as Lady Sharp suggested in her letter, that Winchester would not pay attention to South Hampshire. It would have to. South Hampshire would be represented by two-thirds of the council.

Mr. Judd: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again, and I apologise for interrupting his chain of thought. But what he has just said means that two-thirds of those taking policy decisions about the intimate personal services of the City of Portsmouth may well never have set foot in the city except for a shopping expedition or a ritual visit to "H.M.S. Victory".

Mr. Page: It might be said that South Hampshire was taking the same sort of decisions about Winchester, Aldershot, Basingstoke and the north. The hon. Gentleman has a wrong idea of the functions which would be allocated to the metropolitan districts or the non-metropolitan districts.
The size of the districts will differ very much from one to another, whether they are non-metropolitan or metropolitan districts. If they are metropolitan

districts, we shall have districts—Southampton and Portsmouth—of 400,000-odd people. Many of the existing urban district councils will have to be merged within those districts. If they are non-metropolitan districts within the County of Hampshire they will be much smaller districts.
The existing county boroughs of Southampton and Portsmouth will no doubt form separate districts themselves. Portsmouth's population is about 197,000 and Southampton's about 215,000. But the urban districts around will form themselves into non-metropolitan districts of 75,000 plus, the sort of figures mentioned in the guidelines to the Boundary Commission. I cannot tell what may come out of the Boundary Commission, but undoubtedly the government of those areas will be in the hands of councils nearer to the people than it would be if the existing urban districts were merged in the 400.000-population metropolitan districts of Portsmouth and Southampton.

Mr. Woodnutt: I noticed with interest that my hon. Friend has twice said "disregarding the Isle of Wight". May I conclude from that that he is giving me my point, and that we are to be separate?

Mr. Page: My hon. Friend should not conclude too much. I was leaving the Isle of Wight, because it is an exceptional case. Even bringing the 109,000 population of the Isle of Wight into the picture does not alter very much the proportions of the representation on the county, certainly as between the three major groupings—Portsmouth, Southampton and the rest.
The second main point of the argument, after the question of size of district, is the functions. The whole debate is about whether Portsmouth or Southampton should be metropolitan districts or non-metropolitan districts—that is, whether they shall have, if they are metropolitan districts, the functions of education, social services and libraries as the Bill stands, or whether they shall be non-metropolitan districts without those functions. The whole debate is about whether those functions should be exercised by an area with a population of about 400,000 in Portsmouth or a similar area in and around Southampton.
The Amendments would make no difference to functions. If they are rejected.


all the other functions of a district will be exercised by smaller areas, and to that extent satisfy a great number of people in South Hampshire.
What we have tried to do in constructing the new counties, particularly those which have strong county boroughs within them, is to bring the strength of those county boroughs into the new county structure. I am convinced that if we extracted a population of about 800,000 from Hampshire we should be leaving a rump in Hampshire which would not be nearly such a satisfactory kind of administration as the whole of Hampshire which we are suggesting, including Winchester and the north of Hampshire plus Portsmouth and Southampton in the south.
I have deliberately left the Isle of Wight to the end, because it was evident from the reception for the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) that the House felt sympathy with the case he put for it. I am rather more than sympathetic. My hon. Friend knows that we have endeavoured to see whether there are circumstances in which we might break all the rules we have laid down in the principles. Despite the fact that the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) says that we have no principles in this, I like to think that we have pretty sound principles but will break them if necessary when it really is practicable to do so.
My hon. Friend reminds us that the Secretary of State said in the early stages that the Isle of Wight deserved exceptional treatment. Our difficulty has been to decide what exceptional treatment it should get. A great deal depended on how the House dealt with the Amendments relating to the rest of Hampshire. It was difficult to reach any conclusion before this debate. What has impressed me today in the case put by my hon. Friend is the stress he laid on the isolation of the Isle of Wight from the mainland.
It is not as if we did not know that the Isle of Wight is divided by five miles of water from the mainland. But he told us that he had deposited with us today a 14-page document. It is an impressive document. It deals with the difficulties of travel and time of travel.

and so on, from the Isle of Wight to the mainland. I should like to consider the document much more fully and decide, on the basis of the result of this debate on the rest of Hampshire and on the question particularly of travel and difficulties relating to the Isle of Wight, what is the best special treatment we could give it.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend said that Clause 100—now Clause 101—does not necessarily meet the case of the Isle of Wight fully. He has put forward the adequacy of its resources, and so on, and I am clear as to the facts about that. I should like to consider further the points he has raised about the distance and difficulties of travel. As he said—and this is obviously a very strong point—with these difficulties it might be impossible to persuade the kind of people we want to serve in this new local government structure to spend time representing the Isle of Wight on the county. I ask him, therefore, to let us look at this matter again, but I must recommend the House to reject the other Amendments.

Mr. Judd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. With the greatest respect to him, while we are delighted at the tactical success of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, the Minister must appreciate that he is revealing his total lack of intimate knowledge of the geography of South Hampshire. I would not dispute with the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight about the difficulties of getting from the Island to Winchester. But if one takes a boat to Southampton, one can go direct from Southampton to Winchester. It is impossible to go by public transport from Portsmouth to Winchester. I do not understand the Minister's position. If he is prepared to look again at the travel problems of the Isle of Wight, why not look again at the travel problems of young people from Portsmouth wanting to serve as councillors?

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that I do not know much about South Hampshire. I have a fairly intimate knowledge, having lived in the area for 30 or 40 years. One can travel, by changing, on public transport between Portsmouth and Winchester. There is not the same sort of difficulty in travelling between Portsmouth and Winchester


as between the Isle of Wight and Winchester.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House has been debating this group of Amendments for over two hours. I hope that it will come quickly to a decision.

6.15 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development summed it up well when he said that there is no unanimity of support for the Amendments. Many constituents, local authorities and parish councils have written to me against these suggestions. One case put from this side of the House must be refuted. This is the suggestion that the job would be too big for the county to handle. Hampshire County Council is an extremely efficient body and would be more than able to handle its business under the new arrangement.
It would not be a case of Portsmouth and Southampton being governed by Winchester—although this sorry fate has been suffered by the whole of England in the past. On Amendment No. 12, the charming but politically ill-assorted group sponsoring it have decided to advocate a formula which, in the alleged interests of Portsmouth and Southampton, would put the rest of Hampshire into an unsatisfactory and artificial grouping. I for one will have none of it.

Mr. Pink: My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) argued that there is not a case for metropolitan status for the two city areas because the county districts round them are growing faster than the cities themselves. He must know that both cities have very

tightly drawn boundaries and obviously the people who, to a very large extent, make up this expansion of the county areas are Portsmouth and Southampton people.

I thank the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) for his support. He says that what applies to Hampshire might apply to other areas. I said that Hampshire is a unique case and I should have thought that if other areas thought similarly about themselves they would have put forward similar Amendments or an Amendment to make Amendment No. 1 much more general.

The pity of it is that so far the opposition to Amendment No. 1 seems to be really just the defence of the status quo. I am afraid that the opposition for the county districts has been a parish pump attitude. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development stated that it could not be said that Portsmouth and Southampton would be controlled from Winchester, but under the Government's proposals they will be controlled from Winchester for the major services such as education, social services and libraries, because the administrative headquarters for them will be in Winchester. If anyone wants to discuss these matters, they will have to go to Winchester to do so. This is really an argument about where the administration of education, social services and libraries is to take place. I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said, but I fail completely to find any reasonable argument against Amendment No. 1.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 198. Noes 223.

Division No. 125.]
AYES
[6.20 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Buchan, Norman
Darling, Rt. Hn. George


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Davidson, Arthur


Allen, Scholefield
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)


Ashley, Jack
Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Atkinson, Norman
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cocks, Michael (Bristol. S.)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)


Barnes, Michael
Cohen, Stanley
Deakins, Eric


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Coleman, Donald
Delargy, H. J.


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Concannon, J. D.
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund


Bishop, E. S.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Dempsey, James


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Doig, Peter


Booth, Albert
Crawshaw, Richard
Dormand, J. D.


Bradley, Tom
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Driberg, Tom


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Duffy, A. E. P.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Dunn, James A.


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dalyell, Tam
Dunnett, Jack




Eadie, Alex
Leadbitter, Ted
Perry, Ernest G.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Pink, R. Bonner


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Leonard, Dick
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Evans, Fred
Lestor, Miss Joan
Prescott, John


Faulds, Andrew
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, William (Rugby)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lomas, Kenneth
Probert, Arthur


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Loughlin, Charles
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Foley, Maurice
McBride, Neil
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Foot, Michael
McCartney, Hugh
Richard, Ivor


Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Forrester, John
Mackie, John
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackintosh, John P.
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Garrett, W. E.
Maclennan, Robert
Roper, John


Gilbert, Dr. John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rose, Paul B.


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Golding, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marks, Kenneth
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marquand, David
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marsden, F.
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Sillars, James


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Sinclair, Sir George


Hardy, Peter
Mayhew, Christopher
Skinner, Dennis


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Meacher, Michael
Small, William


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Heffer, Eric S.
Mendelson, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Mikardo, Ian
Steel, David


Horam, John
Millan, Bruce
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Stonehouse. Rt. Hn. John


Huckfield, Leslie
Milne, Edward
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taverne, Dick


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tinn, James


Janner, Greville
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Tuck, Raphael


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Moyle, Roland
Urwin, T. W.


John, Brynmor
Murray, Ronald King
Vickers, Dame Joan


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oakes, Gordon
Wainwright, Edwin


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Ogden, Eric
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Wallace, George


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
O'Malley, Brian
Watkins, David


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oram, Bert
Weitzman, David


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Orbach, Maurice
Wellbeloved, James


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Orme, Stanley
White, James (Glasgow. Pollok)


Judd, Frank
Oswald, Thomas
Whitlock, William


Kaufman, Gerald
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Kelley, Richard
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Kerr, Russell
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Woof, Robert


Kinnock, Neil
Pavitt, Laurie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Latham, Arthur
Pendry, Tom
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Lawson, George
Pentland, Norman
Mr. Joseph Harper




NOES


Adley, Robert
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fidler, Michael


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Churchill, W. S.
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Astor, John
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Atkins, Humphrey
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Cockeram, Eric
Fortescue, Tim


Batsford, Brian
Cooke, Robert
Fowler, Norman


Bell, Ronald
Cooper, A. E.
Fry, Peter


Benyon, W.
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Gardner, Edward


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Cormack, Patrick
Gibson-Watt, David


Biffen, John
Costain, A. P.
Goodhart, Philip


Biggs-Davison, John
Crouch, David
Goodhew, Victor


Blaker, Peter
Crowder, F. P.
Gower, Raymond


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Body, Richard
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gray, Hamish


Boscawen, Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Green, Alan


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dean, Paul
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bowden, Andrew
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Grylls, Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Gummer, J. Selwyn


Bray, Ronald
Drayson, G. B.
Gurden, Harold


Brinton, Sir Tatton
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Dykes, Hugh
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Burden, F. A.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Haselhurst, Alan


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Emery, Peter
Havers, Michael


Carlisle, Mark
Eyre, Reginald
Hawkins, Paul


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Farr, John
Hay, John


Chapman, Sydney
Fell, Anthony
Hayhoe, Barney







Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Moate, Roger
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hicks, Robert
Money, Ernle
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hiley, Joseph
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Skeet, T. H. H.


Holland, Philip
Monro, Hector
Soref, Harold


Hordern, Peter
Montgomery, Fergus
Speed, Keith


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
More, Jasper
Spence, John


Hunt, John
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Sproat, Iain


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stainton, Keith


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Mudd, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


James, David
Murton, Oscar
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Jessel, Toby
Neave, Alrey
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Normanton, Tom
Stokes, John


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Onslow, Cranley
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Sutcliffe, John


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Osborne, John
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Kimball, Marcus
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Tebbit, Norman


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Parkinson, Cecil
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Peel, John
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Kinsey, J. R.
Percival, Ian
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Kirk, Peter
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Tilney, John


Kitson, Timothy
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Trew, Peter


Knox, David
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Lane, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Ralson, Timothy
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Walker-Smith,Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Loveridge, John
Redmond, Robert
Ward, Dame Irene


Luce, R. N.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Warren, Kenneth


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Weatherill, Bernard


MacArthur, Ian
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


McCrindle, R. A.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
White, Roger (Gravesend)


McLaren, Martin
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Ridsdale, Julian
Wilkinson, John


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Winterton, Nicholas


Maddan, Martin
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Marten, Neil
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Mather, Carol
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Woodnutt, Mark


Maude, Angus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Worsley, Marcus


Mawby, Ray
Rost, Peter



Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Royle, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Scott, Nicholas
Mr. Michael Jopling and


Miscampbell, Norman
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Marcus Fox.


Mitchell,Lt.Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Sharples, Richard

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 13, at end insert—
(7A) Part V of Schedule 1 to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of constituting parishes the areas of which are co-extensive with those of certain existing boroughs and urban districts.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we are to discuss the following:
As an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out 'co-extensive with those of certain' and insert 'within'.

No. 133, in Schedule 1, page 205, line 21, at end add:

PART V

CONSTITUTION OF PARISHES BY REFERENCE TO EXISTING URBAN DISTRICT AND BOROUGH BOUNDARIES

1.—(1) The English Commission shall consult the councils of existing counties, boroughs and urban districts and the Committees established

under section 252(1)(b) above with a view to making proposals to the Secretary of State for the constitution of parishes having boundaries co-terminous with those of existing urban districts and boroughs, and for naming those parishes.

(2) The Secretary of State may give the Commission directions for their guidance in making any such proposals.

2.— (1) The Secretary of State shall by order give effect to any proposals under paragraph 1 above, either as made to him or with modifications, but no such order may specify for a parish a boundary different from that of an existing urban district or borough.

(2) A statutory instrument containing an order under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

3. The constitution of an area as a parish under this Part of this Schedule shall not affect—

(a) the continued existence, subject to section 1(9) above, of the borough or urban district the area of which is co-extensive with that of the parish, or
(b) the power to make changes in local government areas under Part IV above.

4. In this Part of this Schedule 'borough' does not include a London borough or a borough which becomes a parish by virtue of section 1(8) above.

No. 169, in Clause 10, page 6, line 12. leave out 'and'.

No. 170, in page 6, line 15, at end insert:
'and
(d) every parish constituted under Part V of Schedule 1 to this Act'.

No. 176, in Schedule 3, page 211, line 17, leave out 'each' and insert 'the corresponding'.

No. 177, in page 211, line 17, at end add:

(2) Until provision is made to the contrary under Part I or Part IV of this Act, the provisions of this sub-paragraph shall have effect with respect to the number of councillors for parishes constituted under Part V of Schedule 1 above, that is to say—
(a) if the area of the parish is co-extensive with that of a borough not divided into wards, the number of councillors for the parish shall be the same as the total number of councillors and aldermen for the borough;
(b) if the area of the parish is co-extensive with that of a borough which is divided into wards, the parish shall be divided into the same wards for the purpose of elections of parish councillors and the number of councillors to be elected for each parish ward shall be four-thirds of the number of councillors for the corresponding ward of the borough;
(c) if the area of the parish is co-extensive with that of an urban district not divided into wards, the number of councillors for the parish shall be the same as the number of councillors for the urban district;
(d) if the area of the parish is co-extensive with that of an urban district which is divided into wards, the parish shall be divided into the same wards for the purpose of elections of parish councillors and the number of councillors to be elected for each parish ward shall be the same as the number of councillors for the corresponding ward of the urban district;
and the numbers referred to in paragraph (a) to (d) above shall be determined by reference to the electoral arrangements in the borough or urban district at the date on which the parish is constituted.

No. 182, in page 213, line 22, at end insert:

(13) The foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall have effect subject to the provisions of paragraph 11A below.

11A.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall apply in relation to a parish constituted under Part V of Schedule 1 above and to the borough or urban district the area of which is

co-extensive with that of the parish; and in relation to such a parish,—
(a) references in this paragraph to the order are references to the order under the said Part V constituting the parish, and
(b) references in this paragraph to the borough or urban district are references to the borough or urban district the area of which is co-extensive with that of the parish.

(2) As from the date specified in the order, the parish councillors shall be the aldermen and councillors for the time being of the borough or as the case may be, the councillors for the time being of the urban district and, if the parish is divided into wards in accordance with paragraph 9(2) above,—
(a) the councillors of the borough or urban district, in their capacity as parish councillors, shall be treated as having been elected for the wards of the parish corresponding to the wards of the borough or urban district for which they were elected; and
(b) in the case of a borough, each of the aldermen shall be treated, in his capacity as a parish councillor, as having been elected for such ward of the parish as shall be determined at a meeting of the parish council held within fourteen days after the date specified in the order.

(3) Each person who becomes a parish councillor by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above shall (unless he resigns his office or it other wise becomes vacant) continue to hold that office until the fourth day after the ordinary day of election of parish councillors in 1976.

(4) Until 1st April, 1974 the persons for the time being holding office as mayor and deputy mayor of the borough or, as the case may be, as chairman and vice-chairman of the council of the urban district shall, by virtue of those offices, hold office as chairman and vice-chair man of the parish council, respectively; and the persons who, by virtue of this sub-paragraph, hold office as chairman and vice-chairman of the parish council immediately before 1st April, 1974 shall (subject to section 16 below) continue to hold those offices on and after the date as if they had been elected to them at the annual meeting of the parish council held in 1973.

(5) Where this paragraph applies to a parish, then, as from the date specified in the order, paragraph 11(1) above shall not apply in relation to elections to fill casual vacancies in the office of councillor of the borough or urban district, as the case may be, and any casual vacancy which has not been filled on that date shall be deemed for the purposes of the 1933 Act to have arisen on that date; and a councillor elected after that date to fill a casual vacancy shall, unless he resigns his office or it otherwise becomes vcant, continue to hold office until 1st April, 1974.

(6) Where this paragraph applies to a parish, sub-paragraph (11)(c) and (12) of paragraph 11 above shall not apply in relation to the borough or urban district, as the case may be; and in the case of a borough any person appointed to fill a casual vacancy in the office of alderman of the borough shall be treated,


in his capacity as a parish councillor, as having been elected for the same ward of the parish as that for which his predecessor as alderman was treated as having been elected by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)(b) above or this sub-paragraph.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Page: This group of Amendments follows an undertaking by my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary during Committee and by myself at a later stage that we would provide for what I may call——

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the Minister but I am not quite clear about the selection. I do not think that you are calling a series of Amendments, including two in my name dealing with Clause 50—Amendments Nos. 298, 299 and 300. These deal with a specific point related to this Amendment. I am happy that this should be so but I want some assurance that this important issue of urban parishes will be developed elsewhere if we cannot develop it under my Amendments.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the Amendments which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned have been selected. The ones for discussion on the Clause are the ones I have read out. If the point which the hon. Gentleman is making is related to this Clause, no doubt he will be able to develop it.

Mr. Page: The Amendments relate to what I will call successor parish councils, that is parish councils which succeed certain authorities now existing which, for their major functions, will merge within the districts.
The background to this is that reorganisation involves the abolition of all existing counties, boroughs, urban districts and rural districts. The new units at the two executive levels will be entirely new authorities. Existing rural parishes are not being abolished, either in metropolitan or non-metropolitan areas. Rural boroughs, or more precisely "boroughs included in rural districts", are being converted into parishes. There are only seven of these rural boroughs.
The Government have always accepted that certain of the smaller boroughs and urban districts which are free standing

in character and which are comparable in size with existing parishes should also have their own elected parish councils in future. The Government envisaged—this is the effect of the Bill as drafted—that such parish councils would be established in the areas of the former boroughs and urban districts only when the new district councils have carried out the review of parishes within their areas. This would have meant a gap between the coming into operation of the Bill and the formation of councils for those smaller boroughs and urban districts. Until that review of the parishes took place there would be an interval between the abolition of the existing boroughs and the urban districts, which would occur in April, 1974, and the setting up of the successor parish councils. The prospect of a time gap of this kind caused a good deal of concern among the smaller towns, especially those with continuous histories of municipal government going back over many years.
There are good reasons why it would not be desirable to retain parish councils within the areas of all existing boroughs and urban districts. Where there is a borough which becomes merged within a new district and its population is large enough to have influence in the new district, to have a substantial number of representatives in the new district council, it would be wrong to preserve any particular powers even at parish level for those larger towns. I am thinking of towns with a population of 40,000 or 50,000 or more. Where we have the smaller towns, anything up to 10,000 or 20,000, it is right to keep alive the parish status.
I hope that by the use of the ancient and revered term "parish" such towns will not think they have been demoted in any way in dignity and prestige. What we mean by parish status is that they should be representative of the views of the people in their area; not necessarily that they should have any great executive powers but should strongly represent the people of the parish, small borough or small urban district.
The core of the solution to this which is put forward in these Amendments is in the new Part V to be added to Schedule 1. This requires the English Boundary Commission to identify and to make proposals to the Secretary of State as to


which existing boroughs and urban districts should retain successor parish councils after April, 1974. In making its proposals the Commission will consult the existing authorities and those Committees at present at work anticipating the coming into operation of the Bill—the 243 Committees as they have come to be known, after Clause 243. Those will be consulted and the Commission will act within guidelines framed by the Secretary of State.
The advantages of this course are first that it will allow time for the guidelines to be discussed between the Secretary of State and the local authority associations. I give an undertaking that there will be consultation on this point. I do not think it would be desirable to write that into the Bill because the consultations may start right away without necessarily waiting for Royal Assent.
Secondly, the recommendations will be made by the Boundary Commission which will already be familiar with the circumstances of each new district. Thirdly, these proposals will be made after the new non-metropolitan district pattern has been determined and against the background of the new district units. We hope that the Boundary Commission will shortly be reporting on the areas of the new districts and that in the autumn its proposals will come before the House after proper consultation throughout the summer and early autumn in the form of an order.
The other aspects covered by this group of Amendments are chiefly procedural. The list of towns to retain successor parishes will be given finality by order of the Secretary of State which will come before the House on the negative Resolution procedure.
As from a date indicated in the order the designated towns will have a dual rôle. They will still have their town status until April, 1974, and they will also have a parish status. The Amendments to Schedule 3 provide that the present electoral areas of the existing boroughs and urban districts shall become the initial wards of the successor parishes and the existing members of the borough and urban district councils will be retained in office and will constitute the successor parish councils until the next normal date for parish elections which will be in 1976. This is a point which is not very easy

to gather from these Amendments. Existing councillors of these towns, although their areas of authority will have merged within the new district, will remain as parish councillors until 1976 when there is a further election.
In the case of ex-boroughs, the existing aldermen will be retained as parish councillors as well as the existing borough councillors. In 1976 there will be proper elections of the whole of the council members.
Those are some of the procedural points we have had to work out in applying the principle of continuation of councils of small towns, which will not have a great influence in the new district. They will not have many representatives in the new districts and therefore we desire them to be represented at the parish level.
We have been unable to table Amendments at this stage on the retention of certain dignities, such as the mayors. I gave a forecast about this in Committee, but I am still in consultation with the local authority associations about the details. I hope we shall be able to put forward a proposal in this respect in another place, but so that right hon. and hon. Members of this House know about our intentions the consultation paper with the local authority associations has been put in the Vote Office. Right hon. and hon. Members will be able to see from it the form in which we are consulting the local authority associations and our intentions in another place about preserving the civic dignities at parish level.
We hope that the House will accept this quite new, somewhat exciting principle for local government in extending the parish status—the status of representing a small area with some executive functions. The important thing, however, is not the executive functions but the representation. This will apply extensively when the Bill becomes operative.

Mr. John Roper: As the Minister has shown, the Amendment provides a solution for the dispossessed boroughs and urban districts if they have a population of fewer than 40,000. This is important, particularly to those freestanding urban districts and boroughs in the new counties which might find themselves surrounded by parishes, all of which had parish councils, but the small borough


would have no further way of representing them.

Mr. Page: To get the record straight, may I point out that I do not think I mentioned the figures in that way. I do not want to put any figures in the guidelines to the Boundary Commission. I merely wish to describe the sort of town which we have in mind. I referred to the figures of 10,000 or 20,000, but figures will not go into the guidelines. It is simply the general character of the towns which we want the Commission to consider.

Mr. Roper: I am grateful for that intervention. I understand that these will normally be the free-standing urban districts and boroughs which might find themselves surrounded by parishes and therefore have no form of representation to the larger new authorities. I am sure that the urban districts and boroughs will be grateful for the Minister's concession. It would help the House if the hon. Gentleman could indicate whether, in the guidelines, he will ask the Boundary Commission to review not only the non-metropolitan counties but the small boroughs and urban districts in the new metropolitan counties and metropolitan districts.
6.45 p.m.
The Amendment to the Amendment would permit parish councils to cover the whole of the area of certain selected urban districts and boroughs, but we need to see the development of this concept of urban parish councils within the whole of the urban areas. Therefore, while a single parish council would be appropriate for an urban district or borough with a population of 10,000 or 20,000, we would want to see some division of the larger boroughs or existing county boroughs into areas so that there could be local parish or neighbourhood councils to represent the interests of that community within the district council and the county council.
That would parallel in England the situation which is proposed in later Clauses for the Principality of Wales. The Redcliffe-Maud Report recommended that there should be a grass roots tier of local government. The Government have recognised this concept for the Principality and now, to some extent, for certain small urban districts and boroughs.

However, I regret that they have not gone as far as to extend this concession to all the urban areas, following the suggestions made by Lord Redcliffe-Maud and Mr. Senior in their reports.
I realise that the existing local authorities and local authority associations may not be enthusiastic about the development of such urban parish councils or community councils in urban areas. The existing authorities, and indeed the new authorities once created, may feel that the setting up of such parish councils will be a nuisance to them. But, in a sense, democracy is always a nuisance to those in authority and the creation of bodies of this sort would ensure that communities throughout the country had a chance to make their point of view known in the way that parish councils have done in the past in rural areas.
Unless we take the opportunity of this reform of local government to make provision for community councils covering the whole country, there will be permanent pressure from existing authorities not to permit the setting up of community councils or urban parish councils. This reform of local government will not be complete unless there is proper provision made at urban parish level, not only in the boroughs and urban districts to which the Minister referred, but throughout the urban towns.
The Government have suggested in earlier consultation papers that in the large towns voluntary bodies—community associations or something of that sort—can fulfil the task of representing a small area and of making representations to the larger bodies. This is not an altogether satisfactory solution. A voluntary body is not as representative of its community as a body which is elected and which must face the challenge of election every three years.
Therefore, the Redcliffe-Maud Report made it clear that a satisfactorily reformed system of local government would provide for a parish or community council which would be able to make representations on the matters which concerned the community and which, in planning matters, for example, would be able to implement proposals such as those put forward in the Skeffington Report on public participation in planning matters.
I hope that the Minister will think again about this matter and will see whether it is possible either to accept the Amendment to the Amendment or to bring forward proposals in another place to ensure that the guidelines which he gives the Boundary Commission are wider than those he has outlined today and will permit the Commission to review at the start the whole of England in order to set up a network of urban parish councils to fulfil this important grassroots function.

Mr. John Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for introducing these Amendments, which I generally welcome. I was a little concerned, however, at what he said about their introduction. Basically, where a new district council is to be formed from the amalgamation of an existing rural district and an urban district, it is essential that the urban district should be on the same footing as the rural district and be given a parish council, which the rural district at present possesses. In my constituency there are two or three instances where such an amalgamation may take place.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend can give the House an assurance that if a larger urban district wishes to have a parish council with 30,000 or 40,000 inhabitants it will be permitted to go ahead. Many urban districts with quite large populations—in the 30,000 or 40,000 range—will look forward eagerly to forming an urban parish council.
My hon. Friend also referred to the gap that may exist between the formation of the district council and the formation of the new urban parish council. I ask him to see whether there need be any gap. Parish councils have very important functions to attend to, and will still attend to them when the Bill becomes law. Some of the important duties to which parish councils will have to attend concern recreation, burial, allotments, footpaths, a first sight of planning and some rating responsibility. It is not enough to say that there will be a gap between the formation by an urban district council and a parish council. If there is a gap, on whose shoulders will responsibility for the discharge of these functions fall in cases where an urban district council forms part of a new district council?
Throughout the country some urban districts have existed successfully for many years having, by the chance of history, been formed by the combination of two distinct small towns. The one or two that I have in mind do not matter; hon. Members will have their own examples. But there are cases where one or two small towns with populations of 8,000 or 10,000 have united to form a successful urban district. I ask my hon. Friend whether, in those circumstances, if the urban district so wishes, it will be possible to form two successor urban parish councils.
Finally, I emphasise that I strongly welcome the Amendments that my hon. Friend has tabled.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am in some difficulty. We welcome the Minister's general Amendments dealing with points that were discussed at some length in Committee. The Minister then assured us that he would consider the problem of the continuity of authorities that were to lose their existence under the reorganisation. We therefore welcome the Amendments, which carry out the Minister's undertaking.
The Minister will remember, however, that we pressed him to go further than that and to deal with the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper), namely, the need—as we saw it—for authorites that can best be described as urban parishes or neighbourhood councils, in our larger towns, to have an opportunity of representation at the grass roots. We regard it as all the more important because the structure of local government that is now emerging suggests larger units, further away from direct contact with many people than was the case in the past. In those circumstances there is greater need for a closer form of association at what, in a town, would be thought of normally as the ward or parish level.
There has been a great deal of discussion of this matter and widespread support for the idea has been expressed by all political parties. The Minister, however, gave no undertaking of the kind that he gave on the question of continuity. Under pressure he agreed to consider the matter, and we hoped that that might result in Government proposals. They have not come.
I have tabled some Amendments to a later Clause and had understood that it would be possible to raise this matter then. I should be willing to limit my present contribution if I had the assurance that those later Amendments would be called. I attempted to raise this matter with Mr. Speaker and received a communication from him that they might not be called. I refer to the following Amendment:
Nos. 298, in Clause 50, page 26, line 43, after 'meeting', insert:
'or from not less than one hundred electors for an area which is not a parish'.

No. 299, in page 27, line 40, after 'interested', insert:
'or by not less than one hundred electors for an area which is not a parish'.

No. 300, in page 28, line 9, at end add:
(9) Where the English Commission make a proposal for the constitution of a new parish either after a request under subsection (4) above or upon consideration of a report by the council of a district made after a request under subsection (7) above, the English Commission may direct that the council of the new parish shall be described by the title of neighbourhood council but shall have the powers, functions, rights, privileges and duties of a parish council.

If they might not be called, I would wish to develop the argument a little further now, but if, as I hope, it will be possible to debate the matter later—after the boundary questions have been disposed of, and we are concerned with the whole work of the Boundary Commission—that would seem to be a more suitable time. I have had no undertaking that my Amendments will be called and I must therefore, relatively briefly, explain why we regard this point as of great importance and the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth as of real significance.

On many occasions we have said that one of our sorrows about the Bill is that it awakens no new, great pulsating excitement in democratic local government—something that we believe is needed. There are grave dangers about our present position. There is a great deal of cynicism. We believe that if we were to encourage the development of some of the smaller urban councils equivalent to a parish, there would be a new opportunity for large numbers of people, including many young people, to play a useful,

constructive and active part in local affairs. That would be an exciting new development such as is missing from the Bill at the moment.

7.0 p.m.

We have not thought of this in party terms but regard it as a real improvement. Many parishes are already in areas which were once rural but have now become urban areas. Some of them are the most significant and lively parishes in the country, because they exist in semi-urban areas. The experience of these councils suggests that there is a useful place for the much smaller authority, trying to meet the needs of a localised community such as a housing estate, which could have limited powers and could be a focal point for the expression of views and could be consulted by the authorities with the real executive power.

There have been experiments like this over the last two or three years and a number of inquiries have been carried out to find out the public reaction. All these have suggested that this kind of development would be welcomed.

The Minister said in Committee that his reason for rejecting this proposal was that he did not believe that the Boundary Commission would be able to define boundaries in so many small councils. One appreciates the problem, but the curious situation is that, as on so many other issues, this will be done in Wales; there is a clear divergence between England and Wales.

However, taking into account the Minister's point, I inserted in my Amendments to a later Clause a provision to meet his argument. This made it clear that these suggestions for new urban parishes would be promoted at the specific requestion of 100 or more electors and would then be considered by the Boundary Commission. This would be some limitation, an opportunity for experiments, without assuming that the Boundary Commission would be overwhelmed by the pressure everywhere to carry out something beyond its capacity.

As my Amendments stand, the matter would come up via the request of 100 electors or more or via the request of a district council. This reasonable solution would meet the point made by the Minister. This scheme would not need to operate in every part of the country


immediately. It is something with which we should experiment. The Government are not encouraging this kind of hopeful and interesting experiment. I do not know why not. They do not seem to have any belief in its value.

The Minister and others have said that the situation is adequately covered by voluntary organisations. We do not agree. We do not think that the one is antipathetic to the other. The establishment by Statute of this kind of local elected body could provide a framework for the encouragement of a great deal more voluntary work and could help to support it financially and possibly by providing secretarial help and premises.

A small organisation was set up a couple of years ago to promote this idea—again, of a non-party character. It held a well-attended conference at which many voluntary groups discussed the project. Since there is still doubt as to whether we can raise this matter later, I hope that the Minister will say that he is even now prepared to consider it further. It will be possible even in another place to make a modest provision to help meet the point that there is a need for organisation at this level.

While I welcome the main body of the Amendment, I regret that the Government have not shown themselves willing to go further and introduce the parish or neighbourhood council into our main towns.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Members for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) and Farnworth (Mr. Roper) have raised the same point in different terms—neighbourhood councils or urban parishes. We are retaining the parishes which one thinks of perhaps as rural entities—those which are now simply called parishes—not only in the non-metropolitan districts but also, where they occur, in the metropolitan districts. That is something quite different from creating urban parishes.
The name "parish" may have been retained for certain purposes, but in fact there are no parishes now within urban districts. Both hon.Members are asking that we should create these new authorities and give them parish status. The Government are still not persuaded that provision should be made in the Bill for

a third tier of this sort in the larger towns.
This does not mean that further experience and experiment, including, of course, community councils for parts of towns in Wales, if they are set up, may not point to the desirability of providing for this type of authority in future. The case for adding to the complexities of the Bill at this time is rather frightening for me when I consider the size of the Measure as it is.
However, the Government have not closed their mind to the ultimate possibility of neighbourhood councils for separate communities within big towns in England, but I do not think the case for this innovation, which would need a great deal of study and consultation, is sufficiently clear to justify our including a specific provision for that in the Bill. This is a matter for further consideration and experiment in the light of the next year or two, after the formation of the new districts, to see how matters are working out.
It is questionable whether this could apply to all large towns. Suppose one tried to make urban parishes within Manchester, Birmingham or other large towns. There could be neighbourhoods or communities in some of the medium-sized towns where there are distinct areas of community interest—where they express certain points of view within those areas—and in Clause 136 the general power of expenditure would permit of a group of voluntary bodies, leading perhaps to a statutory body in the end, but certainly being assisted in the early stages of development by the money which can be devoted to them under Clause 136; what we have known as the "free penny" but which will be something more than that now.
I was asked whether the Commission would be asked to do anything about this issue. The answer is "No". The Commission has been specifically excluded from recommending the constitution of parishes for parts of existing boroughs or urban districts. The possibility of this was, of course, considered when drafting the Bill in the early stages and when drafting the Amendments which I am presenting.
There are several boroughs and urban districts which consist of two or more


separate communities and which, although too big in character for a successor parish council, could have been painlessly divided into individual parishes. But the arguments against doing that in the Bill at this time are overwhelming.
The Boundary Commission will be recommending the successor parish councils for the small, free-standing boroughs and urban districts by not earlier than the spring of 1973. It would be extremely difficult then to proceed with the formation of urban parishes by dividing up towns on that basis. It would add such a terrific load to the Boundary Commission's work at this time that it would not prove successful.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The hon. Gentleman is repeating an argument which he adduced in Committee. Itabled an Amendment at that stage to Clause 50 to overcome the difficulty which he is mentioning and which would have applied where 100 or more electors applied or where propositions came from district councils. This could have been arranged in any way the right hon. Gentleman chose to spread it over a period of time. Will he now provide the machinery to enable this to start?

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Page: It would make it very difficult if we were to be controlled by the whim or wish of several people or a group of even 100. We want to organise the Boundary Commission's work and arrange the creation of areas along lines which allow the load on the Commission not to be governed by an expression of wish from outside. Under the hon. Gentleman's suggestion there would have to be lines drawn within towns creating new areas within those towns. We should then have to hold elections for those areas and set up a whole new structure.
Be that as it may, I repeat that this is not shut out of the mind of the Government altogether. We have some sympathy for this proposal and it may be that as the working of the new organisations proceeds, we shall be able to bring some form of representation of areas within the larger towns into operation that way. However, I would prefer to take it step by step and to see how the encouragement of voluntary organ-

isations proceeds in the larger towns and how the new parishes of the free-standing towns operate; and then perhaps we can consider parishes within towns.
I must correct a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). I think he misunderstood me when I was talking about the gap that might occur. There will be no gap in the successor parish councils which we are setting up. Councils for the parishes and free-standing small boroughs and urban districts will continue, so there will be no gap. My hon. Friend can hardly call it a gap if we do not set up for a time new urban parishes and neighbourhood councils as part of the existing large towns.

Amendment agreed to

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I beg to move Amendment No. 431, in page 2, line 27, at end insert:
'but every existing borough within a new district and not providing the seat of local government within that district shall, if it has a pre-1700 charter, be allowed to style itself as an ancient borough and the chairman of its parish council be styled a mayor'.
I shall not detain the House, because this issue was considered in Committee. At that stage I was somewhat reassured by the remarks of the Minister, but unfortunately his comments have not led to a Government Amendment on Report. This is why my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) and I are raising the matter again. This is an important topic which deserves the attention of the House.
Under the terms of the Bill many smaller boroughs with charters going back perhaps to the Middle Ages will disappear and lose their identity and individuality if they become subordinate in a new second-tier authority or district. Some of these boroughs will be coterminous with the districts and it is clear that they will be able to petition for charters, use their civil regalia and retain, at any rate to some extent, their style and dignity. Many smaller boroughs, however, will not be so fortunate unless provision for them is made in the Bill. I am desperately anxious that we should be given an assurance that it is the Government's intention to make the necessary Amendment to this end either here or in another place.
In moving a similar Amendment in Committee I pointed out that we were concerned that nothing should be done to sacrifice something of very great worth or to destroy something which is the cause of much proper local pride, and all this in the cause of tidiness and efficiency. There is a great value in local pride and in the customs by which it is often expressed. One of the country's strengths is this expression of identity found in many communities. In many of our smaller and more ancient boroughs we find a very real richness which is often most movingly obvious on occasions of civil dignity. I know that it will be said that these styles will have no power as such, but power is not necessarily the answer when local feeling is involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow was not fortunate enough to be a member of the Standing Committee and to present his own case, but I know that in his constituency four rural boroughs were created in 1958. That was a compromise. Certain powers were taken from them, but they were able to maintain their style and dignity of borough and the chief citizen was able to call himself mayor. We are asking here for an extension of the 1958 compromise so that these ancient towns, some of our finest and best-loved towns, should be allowed to keep their sense of corporate identity. It is not an earth-shaking issue, but it is something by which the Government and the Bill will be remembered long after many of our other debates are forgotten.
I want the citizens of places like Ludlow and Dover to feel that they are citizens of very ancient towns, and I feel that their chief citizens should retain their own style and title, and on civic occasions be able to use the civic regalia and plate which they have acquired through gifts over centuries. I want them to be able to do this and to keep the citizens' love for their own town, and so continue to contribute something to the diversity and richness of English life to which they contribute at present. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to allay some of the fears aroused, because we have not found in the Notice Paper today an expression of the Government's intentions.

Mr. Jasper More: I had thought that the Amendment might more

appropriately have referred to line 18, rather than to line 27, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or to line 28 as it appears on the Notice Paper, and I hope that we shall not be at cross-purposes.
I did not have the honour of being a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, and I want to express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) for all his hard work in many causes, among them being my own cause. I think that I am right in saying that this Amendment is similar to one that my hon. Friend moved in the Standing Committee, except that it relates to boroughs such as those in my constituency which came under the Local Government Act, 1958, as is referred to in subsection (8). It is for that reason that I feel that the Amendment would start more appropriately in line 18.

Mr. Cormack: The Amendment was originally tabled in Committee in exactly the same form and referred then to line 28, but there has since been a slight change and I am advised that line 27 is correct.

Mr. More: I am grateful to my hon Friend.
We hoped, perhaps wrongly, that at this stage we should find a Government Amendment dealing with some of the matters raised in Committee, because we had had very considerate and conciliatory replies from the Ministers.
My constituency is in a somewhat anomalous position, because Shropshire and, I think, only two other counties, underwent the preliminary reorganisation brought about by the 1958 Act. I think that Cornwall was another county so affected. But the principle raised by the Amendment applies quite as much to any other borough as to the peculiar boroughs we have in these three counties, which are at present known as rural boroughs.
The purpose of the Amendment is to preserve what is the present position of a borough which has undergone, so to speak, demotion from actual borough status to parish status. We in Shropshire have been living now for some years in this position, and I believe that it is a sound rule in local government and in most other matters that what Shropshire did yesterday it is wise for


England to do tomorrow. We have been living quite happily in this situation, however anomalous it may appear to the Minister, and I suggest that there are very sound reasons for maintaining it.
I have in my constituency, for example, the Rural District Council of Bridgnorth, within which we have two rural boroughs, one being the Rural Borough of Bridgnorth and the other that of Much Wenlock. Everyone understands the position. It does not seem to puzzle anyone. I do not encounter any ruffled feathers. I do not get complaints from the chairman of the Bridgnorth Rural Council saying that it is a slight on his position that there should be a mayor of Bridgnorth, because this is still a borough. I suggest that following the example of Shropshire, where we have a particular scheme, it would be sensible, to make that scheme apply to the rest of the country generally.
This scheme of things, which admittedly applies only to a limited number of rural areas, relates to the position where we have a large rural area with a number of small boroughs scattered in it. When our district council boundaries have been finally redrawn we may easily have a position in South Shropshire of having one district council containing no fewer than four of the existing boroughs. What is involved is the question of the title of the chairman, and the Amendment, so excellently moved by my hon. Friend, provides that the chairman should be called mayor.
I have had the advantage of looking at the consultative document to which the Minister referred, and in some respects I find it very puzzling. Perhaps I might refer to paragraphs 9 and 10 of that document. Paragraph 9 says that the chairman of the council will be described by that name, and it will be made clear that he shall have precedence throughout the district.
Paragraph 10 states:
Within these basic statutory provisions, however, such other terms or titles may be used so as not to cause confusion. The terms 'borough' and 'borough council' must be reserved for the district level but it would be open to a parish council…to adopt any other style, e.g., town or township…
Having read that, I am not clear whether the Government's object is to produce clarity or confusion. In English things I am always one for producing confusion. I do not like the Continental habit

whereby everything has to be the same; whereby the mayor of Milan has the same title as the mayor of the hilltop village of San Giovanni in Fiori in Calabria and where they are both called Sindaco.
7.30 p.m.
I see no virtue in these Continental ideas of similarity—not because I happen to be against the Common Market; that has nothing to do with it—but because it is sensible to look at realities. In England the realities are that we have very long usage in these boroughs, which are borough-conscious, which seem to be doing no harm and, in Shropshire in any case, have proved that they cause no confusion. If the Government are seeking confusion, paragraph 10 will give it to them, because as I read it they will end up with some district councils that are councils, other district councils that are boroughs, some existing boroughs which are parishes, some existing boroughs which are towns, or possibly some existing boroughs which are town ships. If that is the scheme of things the Government want, I suppose it is confusion, but if we are to have confusion, I prefer the confusion we have now instead of a new confusion.
This matter becomes even stranger when one comes to paragraph 12 and looks at some of the titles that the Government have in mind. At the end of subparagraph (b) it is seriously suggested that the mayor of Ludlow might like to revert to a name used locally in earlier times, for example, bailiff, warden, portreeve or chamberlain. If we are really to try to rename all our areas and make them clear, why do we not go the whole hog? For example, we could call all the chairmen of our county councils landgraves and the chairmen of our district councils margraves. That would make it quite clear.
I should like my hon. Friend to come to the wilds of South Shropshire to see the wonderful clarity and harmony with which our present system works. Without in any way denying the needs of areas which are different, for example, areas where the larger part of a new district council consists of one borough or one urban district, I should like him to recognise the fact that different considerations apply in areas such as mine.
Having had to table some Amendments in rather a hurry, because we found that there was no Government Amendment, my hon. Friends and I are hoping to table a parallel Amendment to the one we are now discussing which will affect the rights of the district council in cases where these situations obtain with small boroughs being in their area. I hope that this will appear on the Order Paper but, irrespective of whether those Amendments are called or discussed, I appeal to my hon. Friend to look again at all this and to try to avoid what I would respectfully call the nonsense of saddling us with things like bailiffs, wardens, portreeves and chamberlains, and seriously to consider whether, in an area like mine, we could not carry on living quite happily under the scheme of things we already have.

Mr. Peter Rees: I, too, support the Amendment. I have the privilege to represent three very ancient boroughs in my constituency, Dover, Deal and Sandwich. Two of them were Cinque Ports and the third is a limb of a Cinque Port. The particular position of the Cinque Ports is recognised by Clause 258. I would hope later to receive very specific reassurances from my hon. Friend the Minister on the future of the confederation, and, in particular, of the Barons of the Cinque Ports who, of course, play a very essential rôle in the Coronation.
The consideration of the position in my constituency leads me to support the Amendment because although it is difficult to forecast the precise form of the second-tier authority in East Kent, it will possibly have as members these three ancient boroughs.
I am in sympathy with the principles underlying the Bill. I am sure that we all hope that the simplification of the structure of local government will lead to greater efficiency and economy in its operation. But I hope that the efficient can always be reconciled with the historic and honorific.
The history of the boroughs of England and Wales is indeed a very significant part of the history of this country, and the mayors, edged around with dignity and panopoly, represent in their persons this thread in our history. I hope that it will not be necessary to cut that thread. It

is unimportant that mayors may have very limited executive and legislative powers because, after all, we have the example of lords lieutenant and high sheriffs, whose effective rôle is slight but who, nevertheless, play a very important and significant part in the life of the county for which they are appointed. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister has undertaken to consult further on this point.
I have as yet studied—cursorily, I regret—the consultative document. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More), I must express some reservations about the names suggested. "Bailiff" may have a rather unfortunate connotation in modern life. "Warden" would be distinctly confusing in my part of the world, because we already have a Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, whose principal residence is in my constituency. I hope that none the less, my hon. Friend the Minister will at a later stage table an Amendment that will cover the very important point raised by the Amendment.
It is the duty of all of us to foster local patriotism as indeed it is to foster national patriotism. After all, both of them have contributed to the enduring strength of this country.

Mr. Robert Hicks: By accepting the previous Amendment the House has agreed in principle that the similar urban units, at present the non-county boroughs and urban district, as we know them, should continue to have an elected council as of right as from April, 1974. My hon. Friend the Minister termed them "successor parishes". This will be very welcome in the West Country. I see many of my right hon. and hon. colleagues from the West Country present, although I suspect that they may be here to discuss a later Amendment rather than this one. But we shall welcome it in my constituency, being largely rural.
We have not only two urban districts but also three boroughs, namely Liskeard, Saltash and Bodmin itself, all of them ancient boroughs of long-established tradition. Therefore, in providing this continuity, the House this evening, I suggest, has given the lead to my hon. Friend the Minister. I hope for some kind of assurance that the necessary Amendments will be tabled so that in


those units of local government which were formerly non-county boroughs, the first citizen can retain the title of mayor, and the various dignities associated with this situation will be allowed to continue.
It is important to make the point that although these people may not have major executive powers, they provide a local community of interest. They give a meaningful expression of the aspirations and traditions of an area, indeed, they reflect the whole character of a local community.
We are all conscious that we live in an increasingly drab and grey age. In some quarters it has been called a plastic age. Anything to relieve the tedium, boredom and bureaucracy, and the sameness of our local life, is to be welcomed.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More), I have in my constituency a rural borough, namely, Lostwithiel. A few years ago Lostwithiel ceased to be a non-county borough and became part of the St. Austell Rural District Council, but it retains its mayor and all that is associated with that office; it still has its annual mayor-choosing ceremony. The local borough—in this case a long-established one—welcomes this occasion and would continue to welcome it in the future.
I have had a brief glance at the consultative document, if it can be called such. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow spoke about the possible confusion caused by paragraphs 10 and 12. I will split my hon. Friend's average, as it were, and draw attention to paragraph 11—
Traditionally the title 'mayor' has been reserved for the chairman of a borough council. The Government believe that there is widespread public desire to retain the position of mayor. They have very great sympathy with this view but, in the long-term interests of local government, are anxious to avoid the confusion and friction which could be created if the title is used at both district and parish level.
Like my colleagues, I do not think that any confusion exists, nor do I think that any confusion would be created in future. We all know where we stand in relation to the chairman and the functions of the district council or the rural district council or the urban district council. I hope that the three ancient boroughs plus the rural borough that are situated in my constituency can continue to have these offices.
Finally in relation to possible future titles, in the Bodmin parliamentary division there is a gentleman known as the Portreeve of the parish of Callington. Callington ceased to be an urban district unit of local government in the early 1930s when it went into partnership with the St. Germans Rural District Council. Rather than call him the chairman of the Callington parish council, a decision was made to describe him as the Portreeve of Callington. Again, no confusion arises. I may join issue with some of my colleagues here, because, I believe, that people locally associate a title with a particular position and as long as they understand what it signifies that is all that matters, because that is what local government is all about.

Mr. Graham Page: My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) was a little selfish to begin with by trying to grasp the Amendment all to himself when in fact my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) tabled it as a far more general Amendment. It does not affect only the borough of Ludlow. It affects all boroughs. I shall address my remarks to the Amendment in more general terms than did my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow.
My hon. Friend was also a little ungracious about a consultation document, the intention of which was to put out to local authority associations all the possibilities for discussion. I presume that my hon. Friend was not in the House when I referred to this consultation document earlier and apologised to the House for not bringing before it Amendments on this subject at this stage. I thought it right to consult the local authority associations before drafting the Amendments. That is the purpose of the document and the reason the Amendments are not before the House today. I give an undertaking that Amendments will be presented by the Government in another place. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow will be a little more generous to me on other occasions.
7.45 p.m.
We have provided in the Bill for the new districts to apply for borough status, to apply for charters as boroughs. If a new district is substantially the same as an existing borough, it will continue, by recitals in the new charter, its charter status as before. The practice is not to


continue a charter but to give a fresh charter reciting the previous charter rights. Many towns which say that they have had charters since the fifteenth century have had a number of charters since then but have retained charter status as boroughs. That will happen with the new districts which are substantially the same as existing boroughs.
There may be a new district which covers more than one borough, and perhaps some urban districts as well. In that case it will be for the existing boroughs to retain as many dignities as possible under their existing charters, as many dignities as are consonant with the new local government structure. Therefore, they will retain the right to have a mayor if they choose to call him such and to retain their charter being held by trustees.
The trustees of that charter may be a new parish. The small boroughs—those which we talked about on the previous Amendment—may continue with parish status and will therefore hold their charters so far as they are not inconsonant with the charter granted to the district of which they form part.
The district may comprise larger boroughs which will not qualify for the successor parish council—the council which we were discussing on the last Amendment. It is suggested in the consultation document that in those circumstances the charter be held by the representatives of the ex-borough on the district council and that they shall be the trustees of that charter.
What we cannot agree is that the existing boroughs, although retaining their charters and their mayors, should continue to call themselves boroughs. This would cause great confusion. We must in future reserve the title "borough" to the new districts which apply for charters as boroughs. One possibility is that the existing boroughs which are retaining their charters in trust should continue to call the chairmen of their parish councils, if they are successor parish councils, mayors, or if they choose—we put this forward in the consultation paper—to retain the titles which some of them at present use for their mayors.
I do not see that the recital of those titles should be any cause for ridicule such as my hon. Friend the Member for

Ludlow engaged in. They are titles which are at present used by many boroughs—"mayor and warden", "mayor and steward", and so on. If the boroughs choose to retain those titles, we are only too happy that they should do so. We have suggested that there should be some distinction between the mayor of the district which has applied for borough status by charter and the mayors of the ex-boroughs which are no longer local government units in the sense of being districts but which may be local government units in the sense of being parishes. Whether the name "mayor" is demoted for the smaller units and they are called "deputy mayors" or whether the mayors of districts are promoted and they are called by a title such as "chief mayor" is a matter for consultation These are the sorts of points which we raised in the consultation paper.
One of my hon. Friends said that the House may be giving me a lead in this today. Without wishing to appear conceited, I think I took the lead some time ago when I made the proposal that we should retain the title "mayor" for the ex-boroughs, and I made that proposal at a certain town which will be well known to some of those sitting behind me waiting for another Amendment—at a meeting at Weston. The suggestion followed that district mayors should be called "super-mayors". That may be the right thing, though some may say that they should be called "nightmares".
I am sure my hon. Friends will agree that it was right to consult the local authority associations and not rush into print with an Amendment. I give this undertaking and assurance that we will make known the results of these consultations and introduce the right Amendments in another place. They will, of course, come back to this House in the form of Lords Amendments in due course, to be discussed if necessary in this House.
In the course of the consideration of the Bill I happen to have enjoyed being shot at for doing things which my hon. Friends did not want me to do. However, I do resent being shot at for doing things which my hon. Friends want me to do.

Mr. Cormack: I thank my hon. Friend and assure him that he is not an Aunt


Sally or a target for all our venom and animosity. We are delighted with what he has done. However, we felt that this matter should be discussed. If my hon. Friend is going to claim credit for the declaration at Weston-super-Mare, I shall claim credit for what I did at the 510th anniversary of Ludlow's charter on 17th December last when I was, I hope, instrumental in persuading him that Weston-super-Mare should have the declaration that it did. I am content to leave it at that and I shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment in a moment.
Whereas I am delighted, as I am sure my hon. Friends are, that the consultative document does not seek to impose any title which is alien or unwanted, and that mayors will be allowed to remain mayors if they so wish, we are a little disappointed at the finality with which my hon. Friend seemed to pronounce on the title "borough". I hope he will give further consideration to this point. He is a very considerate man, though we saw him slightly in another guise this afternoon. I am sure he is ready for his dinner. I hope he will give a little more attention to this matter because the title "ancient borough" which we propose, and which I think is a logical extension of the title "rural borough" which was conjured up in 1958, might be much more acceptable to many of the communities to which we have referred than some of the other titles in the document. If this is the general consensus of opinion. I hope that my hon. Friend will bow to it.
With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1

COUNTIES AND METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS IN ENGLAND

Mr. Michael Cocks: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 192, line 8, at beginning insert:

Greater Bristol

District(a)

The county borough of Bristol.

District (b)

In the administrative county of Gloucestershire—

the urban districts of Kingswood and Mangotsfield;

the rural district of Warmley.

District (c)

In the administrative county of Gloucestershire—
the rural districts of Sodbury and Thornbury'.

This Amendment seeks to correct one of the great anomalies thrown up by the Bill. The position of Bristol in the present local government reorganisation is uniquely humiliating. Bristol is by far and away the largest and most important city being reduced to a district council. Bristol's charter goes back to 1373. Besides a long tradition, we are extremely up to date and have the most progressive education and social services in the country. Yet Bristol is being stripped of most of its powers, and only after representations in Committee did the Minister agree that Bristol should be spared the humiliation of reapplying for her charter. Bristol's importance is recognised by the A.M.C. and Bristol is one of the great cities, with Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield, with permanent representatives on A.M.C. Committees, yet all the others have been given metropolitan status and Bristol is the odd one out.

Bristol is thought of as a prosperous city but recently ominous cracks have been appearing. Last summer nearly 800 men were laid off at Imperial Smelting. Bristol Piping closed down, affecting 250 jobs; Bendix Westinghouse 100; and B.D.R. 300. There is a growing loss of job opportunity. B.A.C. accounts department has recently moved to Weybridge, and there is danger of creeping decline. Action is needed, and I do not believe that Avon is the best way of dealing with this. Indeed, we are already hearing of internal stresses developing in the steering Committees which are beginning to work in trying to co-ordinate the new authority.

Apart from Bristol's need, I stress the need to maximise the growth in South Gloucestershire because the two go hand in hand. This is one of the great growth points in England, and it is freely conceded that some sort of metropolitan solution will have to be looked for in 10 to 15 years' time.

How realistic is the idea that we shall have a revision in the future? It seems to me that a major shake-up in the future is very unlikely. It has taken so long to get round to local government reform


that the forces of inertia will be completely against doing anything, and things will be allowed to remain as they are. Surely if we are reforming local government we should make a thorough job of it. We should take account of existing trends and then have a period of stability in which things can settle down. Apart from the chanciness of reform in the future, I believe that delay in the creation of a metropolitan area will do great damage to local interests, to the South-West as a whole and also to the country at large.

I base a great deal of my case in saying this on the Severnside Study which appeared last year and which I do not believe has been sufficiently taken into account in formulating the local government proposals for this area. The Severn-side area to the north of Bristol has been a site of industrial and residential growth for some years and shows no sign of congestion. There is a great deal of flat land available for industrial expansion, and it is at the centre of a national communication network. Future population growth will be substantial even if there is some revision in the existing estimates.

The Severnside Study expressed the very clear view that opportunities for growth may not be exploited. The plan went on to outline three possible ways in which growth may be accommodated. The first is by sticking to the concepts of present development plans. When we think of large areas of North Somerset, including Weston-super-Mare, there is only room for small local development. Bath is out of the question for major development because of its unique architectural and historical qualities. Therefore, with this first suggested solution we can have only minor scattered development which will not for long accommodate the expected growth. So there would be great pressure to establish new areas for development in the green belt itself. If these were successfully resisted, people would eventually have to leave the area, to its great detriment and particularly to the detriment of Bristol.

The third possibility is major expansion to the north of Bristol, and the study plumps for this heavily. The north is chosen because apart from the usual considerations of marshy land, steep slopes and quality of agricultural land, there are

two maps in particular, Nos. 9 and 10, in the study showing countryside conservation and nature conservation and showing the inexorable forces which go to pointing that there must be some change in the green belt and a development in the Frampton Cotterell area. I know that the right hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) will agree that Frampton Cotterell is a delightful village where one can lose oneself even after one has known it for 10 or 15 years. But when we talk of the Frampton Cotterell area we are, in fact, talking about the whole area to the north of Bristol delineated in the Severnside Study.

Either we concentrate here, as I say, or we have scattered development, leading to decline. The scattered development itself would put a strain on services. It would make for longer journeys to work and would create difficulties for shopping and entertainment.

8.0 p.m.

The alternative to scattered growth is a greater Bristol development, rising to a population of over 1 million. I believe that escalating land prices and growing pressure for land release make this Severnside solution imperative if we are not to have the desecration of superb Gloucestershire and Somerset scenery. Incidentally, it will also safeguard a great deal of first-rate agricultural land.

There is need for an early decision to this effect and an early start to planning. It is particularly necessary to safeguard the development opportunities by reserving routes and other kindred matters. In fact, a South Gloucestershire planning study approved in 1970 said that there should be no more land released for development in this area except as part of a greater Bristol strategy.

It is generally conceded that the local government structure in this area will be re-examined in 10 or 15 years. Will this really help? By the time it comes about, we shall have missed the boat. Will the new Avon county, if it is brought into being, and if it knows that it will have to lose this area in the long run, devote the time and resources needed to build up the essential early infrastructure for this great urban development? Why should it pour the massive effort needed into the area when, almost by definition,


just as the thing is moving towards completion it will lose it?

I believe that the solution suggested in the Amendment is the best one to cope with the growth. In economic and environmental terms it is very satisfactory, and from the standpoint of rate of return on national investment in infrastructure, in things like the motorway system or the new Parkway station, it would give us the best return on money put in.

I readily concede to the Minister that there are three metropolitan districts in the Amendment, and in district (b), Kingswood and Mangotsfield Urban District Councils and the rural district of Warmley, the population in 1971 was only 78,000, while in district (c), the Rural Districts of Sodbury and Thornbury, it was 110,000. These are far below the population which the Government regard as acceptable for metropolitan districts.

I have separated districts (b) and (c)in the Amendment in order to emphasise the difference between them. The Kings-wood, Mangotsfield and Warmley area is largely developed, although there is still some space for which there are plans to give a projected growth of population to 101,000 by 1981. Sodbury and Thornbury are estimated to grow to 139,000 by 1981.

If these were separate districts, I should envisage a great deal of co-operation between them, since this would seem to be in keeping with the Minister's remarks on the new Clause regardingeducation services which we discussed last Thursday, and both areas already share a great deal of common services as part of the existing Gloucestershire County Council area.

If the Minister will not accept that these limited populations are viable, I point out that if districts (b) and (c) are merged they can produce a South Gloucestershire metropolitan district with a present population of 188,000, which is an entirely acceptable figure, and a projected population of 240,000 by 1981, only seven years after the new authority will have been created. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when he is thinking about it, because it seems to me that the merging of the South Gloucestershire area will produce a metropolitan district which satisfies the criteria which he spelled out earlier when dealing with another matter.

The solution which I propose is not only in the national interest; it would help the South-West as a whole. We do not hear much about it, perhaps, as compared with other parts of the country, but there is a great deal of unemployment in the South-West, and wages are in many cases pitifully low.

A metropolitan development in the Bristol-Severnside area would shift very slightly the national centre of gravity towards the South-West and, I believe, produce benefits not only by focusing more attention towards the South-West, but also, by concentrating expansion here, it would relieve the pressure and so help to preserve the many architectural, historical and scenic features of the South-West which will be one of the great attractions to help build up the service industries which must provide one of the great sources of future employment. It may at some time in the future, indeed, help to produce a balanced Severn estuarial authority. In parenthesis, I may say that we cannot help sometimes contrasting the treatment which Cardiff is receiving as compared with Bristol.

I ask the Government to look ahead, to create a metropolitan county, of two districts only if need be, to make sure that this important Severnside growth gets off the ground to help the prosperity of the Bristol area and the South-West, to make sure that the nation has the maximum return on its resources, and to envisage two metropolitan districts both climbing up to approximately the same sort of population figure, both coping with common problems and with different problems, but both working in harness for the good of Bristol, for the good of the South-West, and for the good of the country.

Mr. Edward du Cann: My hon. Friends and I are grateful for the opportunity to debate the 53 Amendments which we have tabled and which fall within the compass of this debate, a debate opened so cogently and well by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) in moving his Amendment No. 6. Incidentally, it was very pleasant to see the Prime Minister here if only for a fleeting moment to pay attention to our debate.
In following the hon. Gentleman, I shall speak to other Amendments and speak for Somerset rather than for Bristol, although I shall probably make some reference to the points which the hon. Gentleman raised. Assuredly, I shall speak with vigour, for I have strong feelings on these matters, but I shall sepak with sincerity, and I do not doubt that others of my hon. Friends who take part will do the same.
The history of the West Country is a proud part of the history of England. Somerset, our county, has had its valuable share in it, from earliest times, lasting through many adventures, not excluding rebellion, and still less—alas—revenge. Many besides myself will be proud of long family connections and associations with the West Country. Somerset is my home. I am concerned to defend it and to preserve it.
It is not too much to say that to each generation in turn Somerset's natural beauty has been an inspiration, and each generation has left its mark on the county. Somerset has its own style, its proper local patriotism, its cohesion. These characteristics have real merit and advantage. At the very least, they are the basis for competent local government, working in sympathy with the wishes of the local people.
Those characteristics are too fine to lose. Neither should they be tampered with or interrupted, but rather should they be cherished and conserved by a Conservative Government.
But not so. It is proposed, by sudden administrative act, radically to change our county, to reduce its population by more than 200,000 persons, or in excess of 35 per cent., and to reduce its rateable value from £22million by £8 million, or by more than 35 per cent. This is indeed a very great step to take. I believe it to be wrong, unfair and, for many of the reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Bristol, South, unwise. This is the first opportunity in public to ask the Secretary of State to change his mind.
The Amendments stand in various names including those of the hon. Members for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King), Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), and Wells (Mr. Boscawen) and, broadly speaking, they describe four alternatives.

I will summarise them shortly. In the first group of 11 Amendments it is good to see the Secretary of State's name on one of them, at least thereby indicating, I hope, that he agrees with 10 per cent. of our argument. The purpose of this first group is to retain in Somerset the whole of the present administrative county, plus the City of Bath. Consequent upon this Amendment the approximate population of Avon would be 610,000 and of Somerset 685,000.
In order to save time I am deliberately not spelling out each of the Amendments but I am sure the Minister will understand them very well.
In the second group of nine Amendments the Secretary of State is supporting one so that the proportion of his approval is rising. The purpose of this group is to retain the existing administrative county of Somerset, excluding the City of Bath, less certain parishes to the north and east of Bath and the parish of Whit-church all in the Bathavon rural district. The effect of these Amendments if they are accepted by the Government, would be to make the approximate population of Avon 704,000 and that of Somerset 591,000.
The purpose of the third group of 18 Amendments, one of which has the approval of the Secretary of State, is to retain in the administrative County of Somerset the Borough of Weston-super-Mare, the urban district of Norton-Radstock, the whole of Axbridge rural district, the southern part of Clutton rural district and three parishes in the Bathavon rural district which adjoin the retained area of the Clutton rural district and the urban district of Norton-Radstock, the so-called "green line" proposal of April, 1971. formulated by the county council. The approximate populations consequent upon these Amendments would be: Avon 798,000 and Somerset 497,000.
The purpose of the fourth and final group of Amendments, where the Secretary of State approves of one of the 15, is to retain in the administrative County of Somerset the Borough of Weston-super-Mare, the urban district of Norton-Radstock, the whole of the Axbridge Rural District Council and the whole of the divided parishes in the Clutton rural district plus the parishes of Nempnett Thrubwell. One of my hon. Friends was asking whether Nempnett Thrubwell


existed and I can assure him that it does. Also included is Hinton Blewett in that rural district.
The approximate populations of Avon and Somerset consequent upon this fourth group of Amendments, the least attractive of all the Somerset Amendments, would be; Avon 810,000, Somerset 485,000.
In terms of population and common sense all these Amendments are better than the proposals of the Secretary of State. We have signed these Amendments representing as they do sundry attempts at improvement. They have one common theme which goes across party lines and across the area. The theme is that what is proposed in the Bill is wrong. I hope the Secretary of State will not be indifferent to such evidence of responsible opinion and will decide tonight that the remedies we are putting forward are constructive.
8.15 p.m.
We were encouraged when the Secretary of State first said that his original proposals were mistaken, as he did when he agreed that, apart from certain minor adjustments to boundaries, the Frome Urban and rural districts, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells should be retained within the County of Somerset. That saved for us some 5 per cent. of our population. In my view he should go a great deal further, and I now proceed to the arguments in favour of doing so.
I must say that the change in local government is very much less comprehensive and is less of a reform than its more determined advocates sometimes pretend. For example, the south-eastern, the eastern, the southern and the western boundaries of our county are quite untouched. Yet I believe there are better arguments in favour, for example, of the Exmoor National Park area being contained within a single county authority, or of the extension of Somerset's southern or eastern boundaries than there are for the Secretary of State's proposals for emasculating our county. I leave that aspect and do not develop it now on the ground of time although it would be easy to do so and make an overwhelming case.
I turn now to Somerset as it is and as it is proposed to be in the Bill. Somerset

currently has a population of 600,000 and is the fourteenth largest of the 45 English counties. It provides well a whole range of county services and it is the focal point of a number of regional local government services. It is the link authority between the northern and southern joint advisory planning Committees of the Regional Economic Planning Council; the headquarters of the consortium for method building: the headquarters of the South-West Children's Regional Planning Committee; the headquarters of the Road Construction Unit—and incidentally how good it is to see under the Conservative Government that road building in the West Country is really beginning to forge ahead; it is the headquarters of the Furniture For Local Authorities Group. These are all matters of substantial significance and they were all introduced at the behest of the central Government. That then is the present county. It is viable, competent, enthusiastic and working well.
The new County of Somerset as proposed in the Bill would have a population of 385,000 and would be the fourth smallest of 38 non-metropolitan county councils. It would have a rateable value of a mere £14 million. This change would create a substantial imbalance not least by comparison with Somerset's neighbours. Avon would have a population of 900,000 and a rateable value of £42 million, three times that of Somerset. Devon would have a population of 900,000 and a rateable value of £38 million; Dorset a population of 550,000 and a rateable value of £30 million; and Wiltshire a population of 500,000 and a rateable value of £20 million.
What does this mean in concrete terms apart from the obvious imbalance? The new county will not be a separate police authority and it might lose its functions as a fire authority. It would no longer be the base for a separate probation and after-care service, and all because it would be too small. The new county would be over-provided with staff, with accommodation and with expensive equipment, not least the computer which it has just obtained. It would certainly have difficulty in the future in obtaining staff of sufficient calibre to maintain the present standard of services. It would no longer


be able to afford certain classes of specialist staff. It would inevitably become a second class county to the detriment of its inhabitants and directly contrary to the Government's professed intention of providing strong units of local government. I hope you will not think me old-fashioned. Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I say that I believe that only the best is good enough for the people of Somerset. We who have the honour to represent them are surely right always to insist upon that.
Compare our situation with the situation in general. The average population of the 38 new non-metropolitan counties is 699,000, almost twice what is proposed for Somerset. If the present boundaries of the administrative county of Somerset remained intact and Bath were included in the new county—the subject of one of our Amendments—it could and would be a strong and fully viable authority with a population of 685,000. It is for this sort of change that I am arguing and for which I am sure my hon. Friends will argue, for our chief criticism is that the Government's proposals will weaken Somerset too much.
What is proposed in the Bill is not inevitable. It would not be true to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not have alternatives. We suggest four alternatives in the Amendments. It is a matter of judgment which is chosen, but I have a great deal of sympathy with the line of thinking proposed by the hon. Member for Bristol, South. Perhaps it is right to regard Bristol as a special case. As the hon. Gentleman said, Bristol is substantially the largest existing county borough outside the proposed six metropolitan counties. It is certain to grow greater still. The hon. Gentleman quoted the Severnside Study. Whether we take that or anything else as a criterion, it is obvious that there will be a continuing development in the north of the proposed new county of Avon and that part of Gloucestershire which my right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) represents with such distinction, and which the Bill proposes to be included in the new county. That will happen whether there is Government support for it or not. It is the trend of the past 30 years. Everything is in its favour, and we shall

see the population of that area continue to build up. This thinking has been endorsed not only by the study the hon. Gentleman quoted but by every subsequent examination.
It is possible to say, therefore, that the proposals in the Bill affecting Somerset run counter to logic and to every local inquiry and recommendation. I would put it in more commonplace terms and say that I truly do not believe there is the least community of interest between North Somerset and the proposed new county of Avon. There is every justification for regarding Bristol as a special case, as one requiring special treatment. As the hon. Gentleman said, sooner or later Bristol and the area to the north are bound to become a metropolitan area in effect. In that event the northern Somerset districts and parishes will almost certainly revert to being part of the old county, to which they wish to belong. It is surely better not to split them now. A much better case can be made for making Bristol a metropolitan area than can ever be made in logic for Teesside, Glamorgan or almost anywhere else in the United Kingdom I can think of.
But there are other extraordinary features of these proposals. In any case, there is not a satisfactory rural-urban balance in the new county of Avon, still less in the new Somerset. On the face of it, the inclusion of 175,000 acres of NorthSomerset and a population of more than 200,000 might appear to provide a rural-urban balance for Avon, but not so. Of the 210,000, more than half—107,500—will be urban dwellers, and there are a further 85,000 citizens of Bath. Thus, in the new county of Avon three out of every four residents will be urban dwellers, and out of the 73 councillors who may be elected to the new Avon County Council, 54, or more than 70 per cent., will represent urban divisions. So the whole basis of the Government's argument disappears. Indeed, it did not even exist.
I summarise the arguments so far: I urge my hon. Friend the Minister, for whose great experience, devotion and hard work in the cause of local government and other causes in this House I have always had the greatest admiration, to recommend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter, because my right hon. Friend's pro-


posals weaken Somerset to the demerit and disadvantage both of the authority and of the population; because they are not logical; because there are alternatives; and because his proposals do not meet his own declared objectives.
It would be possible to talk a great deal about matters of detail, like the divided Mendip parishes, but I do not propose to do that. However, a final point requires real emphasis. My colleagues and I have sought to persuade my right hon. Friend in favour of our arguments privately, in discussion and by memorandum and correspondence rather than by demonstration of any kind. We have led no public agitation. But do not let it be supposed that this means we do not feel keenly. We do, but we prefer the path of democracy to the path of open hostility of a kind which we are seeing far too much in our country in different respects at present. But I hope I have shown today—I repeat, for the first time in public—that the Government would be unjustified and unwise to proceed further with these proposals. I beg my hon. Friend to have them reconsidered.
In the county we have seen the arguments develop without ourselves publicly pressing the case in which we believe out of loyalty and friendship towards the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister. It would have been very easy and very popular to do so. Therefore, local opinion when expressed can be regarded as genuine and heartfelt. I and others have sent my right hon. Friend a number of examples from the police, the farmers, women's groups, and local authority workers. There is a long catalogue. If that is not enough, a vote has been taken among those electors living in that part of North Somerset affected by the Government's proposals. Of the 155,000 people canvassed, 115,000 voted. That is 74 per cent., and a representative example, we may think. Those who are for the Government's proposals numbered 17,000, or 15 per cent. Those who were for Somerset were almost 100,000, or 85 per cent. So local opinion is overwhelmingly against the proposals. It would be wrong to ignore that opinion. Indeed, I am fortified in this view by what is written in the White Paper "Local Government in England", Cmnd. 4584, issued in February, 1971. Paragraph 8 says:

Local boundaries…should be understood and accepted as sensible by electors.
I repeat that it would be wrong to ignore public opinion in this area.
8.30 p.m.
None of us in Somerset is in any way unreasonable. Indeed, I am in great sympathy with the strategic purpose of the Bill and voted for it on Second Reading in the hope that my right hon. Friend would agree in the meantime to reconsider what was originally proposed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development will give an assurance that we shall have that reconsideration. I hope he will say so clearly and, if he is able to, will define what he proposes by way of amendment. That, I hope, would be a radical change, which would be a victory for common sense and good sense, qualities with which I firmly associate him.
For myself, I shall vote for Amendment No. 6 in default of such an assurance. That is our only way to protest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, unless you wish to allow us to have votes on any other of this group of Amendments. It is not for me to recommend them to do so, but I hope that some of my hon. Friends will follow me in this regard. Those who cannot bring themselves to go that far will not, I hope, vote against us but will abstain.
Many courses influence our actions in this House. We constantly have to profess several loyalties. When they come into conflict, especially in personal terms, that is a sad thing, but in this regard unhesitatingly and with conviction I shall do in the interests of my friends and neighbours what I know to be right.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I support Amendment No. 6 and the eloquent advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks). I am delighted that hon. Members on the Government side from the rural hinterland around Bristol and further west have added their names to the Amendment. I am sorry that Conservative Members who represent Bristol constituencies have not added their names. I think that is unfortunate, but no doubt they have their motives.

Mr. Robert Cooke: There are some of us who have come


here today to listen to the arguments and make up our minds in the light of those arguments.

Mr. Palmer: I am glad that hon. Members have come to listen to the arguments. It is a good practice if it can be followed. But I have known speeches made in ignorance of the arguments.
My hon. Friend has referred to Bristol and its great historical importance and the tremendous status it has always had in the life of our country, going back to ancient times. There is no need for me to enlarge on that truth. Until the end of the eighteenth century, Bristol was the second city of the land. The memoirs of a traveller staying at Bath in the eighteenth century which I once read referred to "the metropolis". When I read the book I thought she was referring to London but in fact she was referring to the metropolis of Bristol.
Without being too boastful, Bristolians can claim that Bristol was well known before Liverpool, Birmingham and Manchester were even heard of. Therefore, when my hon. Friend and I with hon. Members opposite advocate that Bristol should have metropolitan status, we are continuing a tradition which comes down in the civic life of our country from the distant past. I agree that our argument would not constitute a case if Bristol had decayed as a city and had declined as an urban centre of first importance to the country. It is true that Bristol had a rather difficult period in the early years of the nineteenth century, particularly after the ending of the slave trade. Since then it has prospered steadily and is a prosperous place at the present time. It is true there are a few cracks here and there that we hope will have no permanent significance. For instance, there is the growth in the last two or three years of unemployment, which at one time we thought was a stranger to Bristol.
But broadly, Bristol remains as it has been over the greater part of its history—a city of strategic economic importance, of great commercial and industrial significance and certainly a city with a vast future. Its influence spreads out into the area immediately around. My hon. Friend made a useful observation when he said that Bristol's natural growth in the residential sense and perhaps in the

industrial sense was to the north of the old city. He has great knowledge of these matters. He has fought a constituency in the area before coming to the House, and he served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill.
My present constituency, Bristol, Central, is disappearing as a result of reorganisation and I am developing my interests now well to the north-east, as the present Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) is well aware. I agree with what my hon. Friend said about Bristol's natural development to the north, and it was emphasised in the Severnside Study. The proposed geographical area in our Amendment is small, but it will have a developing population, and it makes a natural entity.
If the proposed change is made, it will largely answer, as the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) emphasised, those numerous critics of this curious and misnamed Avon County. I always think that "Avon" should be somewhere near New York, for its sounds rather like Winchester County which is a district outside New York.
If Bristol were given independent metropolitan status, that would answer critics of Avon and those who have so stoutly defended the continued existence of the historical County of Somerset. A solution of this kind would answer the many powerful criticisms.
The trouble about the proposed Avon County is that it will dilute Bristol without helping anyone else very much. That to me appears to be the weakness. It is neither one thing nor the other. I am sure that Bath would not be sorry to be free of Bristol. Weston-super-Mare is anxious to be out apparently. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) is here tonight, and has signed the Amendment. Somerset would retain its ancient strength in numbers and influence.
Bristol has had a long and rich experience as a county borough in modern times. In social, administrative and commercial terms it is a local authority which has had and continues to have a nationwide reputation. It would be a pity if this rich civic experience in managing in this concentrated urban area were lost by just hoping that by spreading


its experience into the limited surrounding rural areas, everyone would gain; I should have thought that the opposite would be the case. I commend the Amendment to my hon. Friend and hope that he will make representations to the Secretary of State and take heed of the many vigorous minds and eloquent voices inside and outside of Bristol who would prefer to see a solution of this kind which would give renewed strength to Bristol and at the same time retain the ancient cohesion of Somerset.

Mr. Frederick Corfield: We are discussing a fairly large collection of Amendments some of which are not entirely consistent one with another. They are nevertheless loosely connected. My Amendment No. 273—in page 198, line 9, after 'Thornbury', insert:
'(except the parishes of Alkington, Berkeley, Hamfallow, Ham and Stone, and Hinton)'.
is concerned with what could be described in comparison with the speeches of the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) as peripheral matters. However, they are no less important to those concerned.
I follow my right hon. Friend in his impassioned speech on behalf of Somerset. I have a considerable amount of sympathy here. In the country areas there is a great loyalty to the old traditions and ancient geographical, later administrative, counties. The Minister will remember that 10 years ago or perhaps a little more I was in a similar position to himself, endeavouring to pilot the Bill on London Government through the House. I have developed a high regard for his Department, for him and for his right hon. and hon. Friends. But, by God, they are urban! They do not understand the real depths of country feeling. I fervently believe that although it would be wrong to base local government entirely on these ancient boundaries, bearing in mind the enormous changes in population in both size and distribution have taken place since the present system was inaugurated at the end of the last century. But it would be equally wrong, bearing in mind the half-hearted enthusiasm of so many people for local government, to discard these deep loyalties which can make an enormous contribution when it is pos-

sible to retain them on the basis of a sound local government argument.
I cannot fully support my right hon. Friend because the only feature that makes the new County of Avon at all acceptable to my constituents is the fact that without some part at least of Somerset they will not be utterly swamped by the urban element. This is the balance to which my right hon. Friend referred and it can be achieved in Avon, if Avon is to be the answer, only by the inclusion of parts of both Somerset and Gloucestershire.
It may be that there is merit in the concept put forward by the hon. Member for Bristol, South for a metropolitan county but not on the boundaries suggested by him. It would be a farce to include parishes east, south or north of Chipping Sodbury. It has always been my ambition to become Lord Sod of Sodbury and to sign myself "Sod". If we look at the map and observe the parish to the north of Thornbury with which I will be concerned later and the parishes to the west, it will be seen that this is a nonsense in a metropolitan area.
8.45 p.m.
But what depresses me in the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, South is the assumption that unless we include all that is required for the development of Bristol within the same local government area we shall not have good planning, conservation of what matters or proper development. I am alarmed at this. I was particularly alarmed by the Minister's comments in Committee when he replied to the debate on Amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) which had been sent to him by the Gloucester County Council. Having discounted the very strong cases for the parishes in the Thornbury Rural District, my hon. Friend the Minister turned to the parishes included in the Amendments concerning the Sodbury Rural District and said:
With regard to the parishes of Sodbury, however, including places like Badminton, in the proximity of the Cotswolds, I should like to have a look at them again and study not so much the social aspects as the geography, because from the point of view of amenity we may not have made the right choice here."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 20th January, 1972; c. 829.]


I took it, I hope wrongly, that he implied that, because these parishes were divided from the rest of Avon by the escarpment of the Cotswolds, we must preserve them and could preserve them only if they stayed in Gloucestershire.
I hope that my hon. Friend did not mean that because, in terms of local government—and I suppose I have been playing about with it as long as he has—the escarpment of the Cotswolds have no relevance whatever. It does not form a barrier between the social movements of people, between the education arrangements, between the travel-to-work areas or between the medical and hospital organisations. They are beautiful hills, but they are not mountains. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give an assurance that he intends to preserve a reasonable form of town and country planning. I shall not comment on his most recent efforts in that direction, although I confess that they fill me with alarm.
As I have said, I am concerned with the small country parishes in the north of the Thornbury Rural District. The case which I wish to make for them has little or nothing to do with the cases made by the hon. Member for Bristol, South and my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton. They are part of a wedge which stretches from Thornbury well into what will be the new County of Gloucester and out of the County of Avon. My hon. Friend the Minister has a sizeable correspondence from me on this subject and I know he will not complain that he has not been properly briefed. He also knows the views of some of my constituents who have written to him direct in no uncertain terms. He knows too that I have found his replies unconvincing.
As I say, geographically these parishes form part of a wedge running into the heart of what will be the new Gloucestershire—some of us would unkindly call it "the Gloucestershire rump". These parishes are not alone in this respect. There are parishes in this wedge, such as the parishes of Tortworth and Charfield, which I have not included, not because they do not have a case—indeed, perhaps they have a more arguable case—but because I have taken the view that it is right to put forward a plea for the

minimum area for which there are sound local government arguments in the hope that my hon. Friend will accept my restraint as a good excuse, if that is what he wants, to give me a generous response. These parishes undoubtedly look more to the north, to Dursley, than to Thornbury and correspondingly far more to Gloucester than to Bristol. They have made a wholly convincing case on local government grounds.
I accept my hon. Friend's argument that local government has had the uncertainties of reform hanging over it for far too long. I do not suggest that he should postpone bringing in his reforms until all these peripheral problems can be studied by the appropriate commission, but it is right that where strong local government arguments exist they should be taken into account now. I have made it clear to my constituents that despite my sympathy for the traditional links that have been mentioned I am not prepared to put forward any argument based purely on them, because if one bases an argument purely on them there is never scope for reform. But it is something of value, to be preserved, where there are also local government arguments.
I challenged my constituents to produce local government arguments, and I believe that they have done so extremely well. First there is the educational argument. The catchment area for the schools spreads right across the proposed boundary, and people look far more to Dursley and to Wotton-under-Edge than to Thornbury. In terms of employment from school, the pupils almost invariably obtain employment from the Dursley and Sharpness youth employment service and find little of any value from Filton, 18 to 20 miles away, as opposed to three-and-a-half miles, or four miles to the north. There is a teachers'centre at Dursley which provides not only in-service training but also copying equipment, record library, workshop and other facilities. Again the alternative is 18 or 20 miles away on the outskirts of Bristol. The technical college is in either Dursley or Stroud, and not in Thornbury or Filton.
Then there are the medical services. The local clinic is at Dursley, five miles away, and not at Thornbury or Filton.


The public library services are similarly situated.
More outstanding is the pattern of the travel-to-work area. By far the larger number of people who live around Berkeley go to Dursley or Oldbury. Equally, considering the number of people in the Thornbury area who work in what will be the new Gloucestershire area, by far the greater number live in Berkeley and work there.
The same goes for the social pattern. I have been at some pains to ask people where they find their entertainment and have discovered that they find it in such humdrum spheres as darts clubs and school cricket teams. They go north wards, round Dursley.
I have absolutely no vested interest in this matter; very much to the contrary. This is a good, strong Conservative area. If I win my case ultimately it will go from my constituency. But my constituents have made their case and it is my duty to put it forward. I believe that it is a strong one, which should not be brushed aside and left to commissions of inquiry, because the criteria which Maud was at such pains to set out all indicate that these parishes look to Dursley and Gloucestershire, and not to Bristol. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will be a little more flexible than in the past and take it from me and my right hon. Friend that in the countryside these traditions go very deep. I firmly resist such proposals—as I have in other areas—where there are no local government arguments, but here there are.
Turning to the question of the parishes in Sodbury I was horrified that it should be thought that they had the better case. If my hon. Friend knows these areas as I do he will know that the people look not to Bristol but to Bath. The people shop in Bath. They get their entertainment in Bath. The education system looks that way, and the hospitals look that way. I can assure my hon. Friend that the escarpment of the Cotswolds is not very high.

Mr. Martin McLaren: I shall try to follow Mr. Speaker's injunction to be brief. There have been some good speeches in this debate. We all listened with emotion to the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Mem-

ber for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). Naturally, I agree with my colleagues who represent Bristol that the Bill involves some sacrifice for our city. For several centuries she has been a corporation, and under the Bill she will become a mere district. The largest cities in the country are to become metropolitan counties, but not Bristol.
Nevertheless, if one accepts, as I do, the central point of the Redcliffe-Maud Report and the White Papers issued by both Governments—that there should be a new unity between towns and their surrounding countryside in large but conveniently-sized areas—one reaches the conclusion that the boundaries of the County of Avon set out in the Bill are about right. I therefore support the Bill's proposals and am against all these Amendments. The Bristol City Council accepted and confirmed these proposals.
In spite of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said, there is a close affinity between Bristol or Bath and the parts of North Somerset or South Gloucestershire to be included in Avon. For example, many of the men of working age are commuters by car or train who earn their living in Bristol or Bath and many of the women go to those cities for their shopping. Therefore, Avon will provide a natural unity and a community of interest, with Bristol and Bath as the urban centres of the rural hinterland.

Mr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman would not seriously suggest that there is any natural affinity between Bristol and Bath? They are not twin towns. They are surely very different in spirit and in temperament. That is the feeling that one always has.

Mr. McLaren: I was not saying that. I was saying that there are parts of the County of Avon which look to Bristol as their natural centre and other parts which look to Bath. So one would have a harmonious whole if one had the two cities and the surrounding country area. It would not be a good idea to lump together Bristol and the whole of the present Somerset, since this would isolate South Gloucestershire and produce an over-large and unbalanced county.
It is objected that the new Somerset would be too small and not financially strong enough, but I understand that its rateable value would be no less than that


of Cornwall, which attaches great importance to its own independence, or that of the new Gloucestershire.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: The point about Cornwall surely is that it is staying as it is. The difficulty about Somerset is that its size is being substantially reduced. Therefore, all the services—the computer and everything else—which have been set up, must now be set down again.

Mr. McLaren: There is force in that, but inevitably, in a local government reorganisation in England and Wales, there are bound to be substantial changes in the boundaries.
I have great affection for all my hon. Friends who represent Somerset constituencies and regret their plight. However, the "Save Our Somerset" campaign is based largely on local patriotism and sentiment.

Mr. J. T. Price: What is wrong with that?

Mr. McLaren: Nothing at all. It is a natural and laudable sentiment, but it is still sentiment.
Somerset is a lovely county and we think, for example, of the west front of Wells Cathedral, of Cadbury Hill with its Roman camp and excellent ramparts and its equally excellent last ditches in which to die, which is what the men of Somerset are doing. I have a friend who lives in Somerset. She has lived there all her life and wrote to me a letter containing this passage:
How dare they interfere with county boundaries and destroy the shires! Near here is the three-shires stone where Somerset, Dorset and Wiltshire meet and Alfred raised his standard against the Danes.
He was presumably brooding on the integrity of the boundaries of Somerset when he burnt the cakes.
We are tonight debating Amendments tabled in the spirit of Alfred. I shall reveal to the House an embarrassing secret about my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). He is called Alfred. It is his first Christian name, but he keeps it dark. When his parents and godparents chose it for him they must have had an intuition about him. Perhaps they felt that he would rise up in his place in Parliament, a

second Alfred, and fight for Somerset. They cannot have been disappointed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare has an Amendment down to take his constituency out of Avon. I do not know Weston-super-Mare, though I read the local newspapers. I have the impression that the elected representatives of Weston-super-Mare Council want to go into Avon. I read, for example, that Alderman David Driver, Chairman of the General Purposes Committee, said:
 'As far as Weston Council is concerned, we have made up our minds and that is it.' There was a very big majority voting in favour of going into Avon.
There has been talk about a referendum having been organised by the "Save Our Somerset" campaign and——

Mr. du Cann: I must intervene to correct my hon. Friend on a matter of fact. The referendum to which he is referring was not organised by any campaign. It was conducted, under reputable auspices, by Somerset County Council. It was, therefore, conducted in a totally distinterested spirit and can be said to have been in precise contradiction to the point which my hon. Friend is making.

Mr. McLaren: I am not really concerned with who organised it. A referendum was conducted and, as we know from what has recently been said in a wider context—the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) has been reminding us of this—if one wants to arrive at the wrong answer and collect together a lot of no-men, one need only organise a referendum. It is a most unsatisfactory guide.
When the Bill is shortly passed and the new county councils are elected, any bitterness that now exists will evaporate. I feel certain that the new counties will receive loyal support and develop their own identities and that the boundaries set out in the Bill for our part of England will be seen to have been wisely and successfully drawn.

Mr. Robert Adley: In following my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) I am conscious that in this debate we are possibly ploughing a rather lonely furrow because during the debate, and not necessarily the debate only on this Amendment, the opposition to the


Government will rightly find much greater expression than will those who generally support the Bill.
I listened with great respect and interest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), whose constituent I am, speaking about the six parishes he mentioned. My right hon. Friend at great length and very cogently pointed out that their case was based on real local government issues. I am reminded of a conversation I had many months ago with the vicar of Keynsham, who told me the sad story that due to Keynsham's present position in Somerset he had over that weekend been unable to obtain the services of a doctor for a mentally sick person who had called on him and that a three-hour delay ensued. This is one of the problems which, hopefully, the creation of a new county based on a more realistic geographical pattern can solve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and I have tabled Amendment No. 38, in page 198, leave out lines 5 to 39. If that Amendment, which would create one county out of Avon and Somerset, had been given serious consideration either by the Government or the Bristol City Council, and by Bath City Council and the Somerset County Council, it would have been possible for those six parishes mentioned by my right hon. Friend, looking genuinely north as they do, to have been excluded from the enlarged county. I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend admit that it was his ambition to become Lord Sod: he is perhaps that mysterious character of who Adge Cutler once sang "The Man who put the 'sod' into Chipping Sodbury".
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West has answered the point about why Conservatives in Bristol did not support this general Amendment, in that we have listened not only to the elected representatives on the Bristol City Council but to its officers, and have made up our minds on the basis of what they, amongst other local authorities in the proposed Avon area, have told us. The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) seemed to seek to give the impression that Bath did not support the creation of Avon, but this is not my feeling.
If I may say so, I can think of no one in the entire House to whom I would

less rather be opposed in any argument on any given subject than my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). If I may say so without sounding presumptuous, I have the greatest possible respect for his ability, his knowledge and his integrity. None the less, I am sure he would not respect me if I did not on this occasion say what I thought was right for local government reform in our area. In passing, I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on the presentation of his case but on the way in which he has led and conducted the entire campaign, of which he himself spoke. He has handled a not-too-good case extremely well and has made the best of what must have been a difficult job if one is talking about local government.

Mr. du Cann: There is nothing wrong with the case.

Mr. Adley: When my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West mentioned referenda, my right hon. Friend interjected to say that, to use his words, the Somerset County Council was totally disinterested in the referendum. I do not propose to comment at length on that, buton the way the question was worded. As a Somerset friend said to me, "If asked the simple question did I wish to change my notepaper or leave it as it is, I would vote to leave it as it is."
I believe strongly in the principles behind the Bill. The Bill is right in its attempts to try to merge town and country. I believe that the creation of a new county in Avon will be an event which the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) said was missing from the Bill. I noted his words carefully. He said "There is no great new pulsating excitement for local government." But I believe, seriously, that the creation of a brand new county can bring a great deal of excitement for the future for those who serve in local government in what is becoming known as the Avon area.
On the local issues, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South really brought out the local issues that he felt should have been taken into consideration when formulating the Government's proposals. Considering shopping habits, transport patterns, such mundane things, perhaps, as the listener-ship of local radio, entertainment habits and travel to work areas, clearly Bath,


Bristol and Weston-super-Mare and their hinterland are inextricably interwoven.
This is not just something being built around Bristol. Avon is a natural area, both in physical and social geography. It is a well balanced area. The fact that Bristol will have less than half the total population should certainly be some reassurance to many people that one city will not dominate the whole area.
There is a myth growing that Bristol has a rapidly swelling and expanding population, and those who have supported the Amendments have used those words quite freely in order to show that Bristol is growing and will swamp the whole of the area. In 1951 Bristol's population was 443,000. By 1961 its population had dropped to 438,000 and by 1971 it had dropped again to 425,000. Therefore, that is one myth that should be nailed. There is a need to see this argument not just in terms of Bristol but in terms of the creation of a new composite county of which Bristol is a part. Any change which could possibly lake place in the Avon boundary, to be worthwhile, will run the risk of severely upsetting the balance which is so difficult to attain.
I do not wish to continue for too long. I certainly would not like any of my hon. Friends, most of whom are also close personal friends, to think that in any of my remarks I have anything whatsoever against Somerset. The whole point of the Bill is not that one should be against somebody but that one should look forward constructively and try to formulate new ideas. I married a Somerset girl, and they grow 'em good in Somerset. The new Somerset, based as it will be around Taunton and the Somerset levels, Wells and Yeovil, and the Mendip plateau, will be a very viable and more delightful county, possibly, than it is at present.
In the last few days, everyone in the Chamber will have been inundated with letters from all over the country pleading special cases. I have received letters from Gosport, Southampton, Beverley, Cleethorpes, North Lincolnshire and Plymouth, to name but six places where the local authorities concerned have made impassioned pleas to Members of Parliament seeking to change boundaries pro-

posed by the Government. Some of these cases are very good. I happen to believe that Plymouth has a particular difficulty geographically. I do not propose to develop that case, certainly not with my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) sitting behind me. But as we are dealing with a Local Government Bill, I must point out that I have also had one letter, and one letter only, imploring me to support the Government. It states:
Dear Mr. Adley, I understand that the Report stage of the Bill is likely to take place very shortly. In view of the amendments which I am advised have been put down in relation to the southern boundary of the new County of Avon as proposed by the Bill, and your concern in these, I would like to confirm that the. Borough Council adhere firmly to the decision that they have previously conveyed to the Minister that in their view the boundary line as proposed between the Avon and Somerset counties is soundly and appropriately drawn. They are strongly opposed to any suggestion of varying the boundary line so as to include the borough in the new Somerset county area.
That letter is from the Town Clerk of Weston-super-Mare which, like the councils of Bath and Bristol, supports the creation of the new county.
9.15 p.m.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) mentioned Mangots-field Urban District, which also supports the creation of the new county. I believe that this new local authority will be sensible and reliable and will serve its area well.
I return to the argument that Somerset will be too small, because it is clearly an argument which is worrying. The argument about Cornwall is relevant, and I believe that a new Somerset can gain strength. Just because it happens to be reduced in size does not necessarily mean that it will be reduced in quality of life.
If the view is taken that size is all important, why is everybody so opposed to the creation of a really big authority, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and myself proposed? That proposal has been rejected, not only by the Government but also by the Somerset County Council. I find the attitude hard to understand when one moment it is said "We will be too small" and the next moment it is said "We do not want to be too big either".
As regards planning, the respective merits of the Gloucestershire County


Council and the Somerset County Council have been mentioned. It is possible to make a case to the effect that in the past the Somerset County Council has not always taken as much account of local feelings in the north of the county as it might have done. I think of the way in which the county council has allowed Lulsgate airport to develop. I think—not that I opposed this—of the way in which the county council has sold off a large slice of land to Bristol for the development of the Bristol West Dock. I do not know to what extent the local people in that part of Somerset were consulted by the county council about that matter. It is not always that one hears the county council referred to in the most glowing terms in Somerset.
I believe that the new County of Avon based on the tripod of Bristol, Bath and Weston will, with these three authorities working together as they have been for many long months, produce a unit which will surprise us all by its efficiency and cohesion.
We have heard that the growth area is likely to be to the north of Bristol because the Severnside Study said so. I do not believe that the Severnside Study will dictate the growth areas of the Bristol-Bath sub-region. The opening of the new Avon bridge and the extension of the M5 will be equally significant in terms of population growth and population movement as anything that may have happened in the past few years.
I understand the feelings of my hon. Friends and how deeply they feel. I know why they feel that way. If they win on this issue tonight we will support them in future. If the Amendments are defeated we hope that Somerset and Avon, Devon and Cornwall, and Dorset and Wiltshire can all live together and have a glorious future.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am afraid that I do not share, nor do my hon. Friends, the hope of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) that these proposals will light the new flame that I suggested was needed in local government. Alas, no. Our verdict on the Bill is that it is something of a mess and that there is little coherent principle in it.
We accept that anyone introducing proposals for local government reorganisation is bound to face much criticism irrespective of whatever proposals he brings forward for change. Therefore, it seems to us all the more important that there should have been recognition of certain issues which could have overcome local pressures—issues which seem to be of such importance as to rank much higher than some of the local influences, even though these local influences are right and proper.
Listening to this debate and to some fairly lengthy contributions, I felt, as my hon. Friends have said on several occasions, that many of the fears which have been expressed might well have been met, particularly fears and anxieties on planning grounds, had there been any proposals in this reorganisation for some kind of regional structure. This is what we need in this area. Therefore, we have to adopt all kinds of compromises and unsatisfactory solutions which I fear will prove in time to be only temporary.
I admit that it takes some courage, if that is the right word to use, to intervene in a debate of this sort, coming as I do from the North of England. However, I respect the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) and of hon. Members opposite in their concern about the future of the great City of Bristol. This is perfectly proper. Certainly one would feel this, coming as I do from Tyneside, about any proposals to demolish or limit the powers and authority of my own City of Newcastle.
I fear that the proposals of the Government seriously limit the kind of contribution that that great City of Bristol can make and has made. This must be a matter of great concern to all of us, and this is one reason why I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South and the proposals that he put forward, even though it would be possible to take objection to the detail of some of them. It might well be more logical to think in terms of two districts within a metropolitan area, rather than three as has been proposed. Certainly the Minister cannot say that he finds it impossible to make any kind of exception for Bristol because understandably he has considered special


cases already. He has indicated that he will give special thought to the position of the Isle of Wight, which is a special case. There are, of course, hundreds of special cases. This is one of the difficulties about the Bill. I can quote places in the North of England which have not been adequately dealt with.
The Amendment moved so effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South, and so vigorously supported by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), carries great weight with me, and, if there is a Division on the issue, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will support it.
I find it a little ludicrous that it should be suggested that it is the Government's objective to merge town and country. That is a laudable objective, but it could be achieved more adequately by some kind of regional machinery, and it is precisely what has not been done in many ether parts of the country. One could give many examples of boundaries having been drawn very tightly, particularly in the metropolitan counties listed in the Bill.
The Minister cannot, therefore, rest upon that sort of case. He will have to answer the practical points which have been put from both sides of the House. For my part, I consider that the proposal moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South merits the support of the House.

Mr. Tom King: A de-date involving Somerset, the West Country and Bristol is a debate, one imagines, into which North country angels would fear to tread. But the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Benkinsop), if I may so put it, is no fool in local government, and he made some telling points on the matters which concern us.
I had originally set for myself the rôle of sweeper-up—I think that that is the football term—for the Somerset team, but anyone who sweeps up after my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) does not have much to do. There were, however, some points emerging from the speeches, particularly those of my two hon. Friends from Bristol, which must be answered at this stage.
I must at the outset comment on a remark which figured in all the Bristol speeches, with the exception of that of the hon Member for Bristol. South (Mr. Michael Cocks)—it fell from the hon. Member for Bristol. Central (Mr. Palmer), too—namely, the reference to the rural hinterland. It may sound a superficial objection, but it is a matter of real concern to a lot of people in Somerset that that expression, the "rural hinterland", should be used, as though the villages and countryside were but an appendage to the towns. The word "hinterland" is rarely used in a flattering sense, and its connotation of a minority rôle emerged, perhaps subconsciously, during the speeches.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) stressed the need for a well-balanced approach, but he could not understand why, on the one hand, we said that the present proposals left Somerset too small, and why,on the other, certain of us were opposed to his proposal for a greater Somerset or a greater Bristol, which we regard as too large. That is what we mean by a well-balanced approach, taking the middle road.
I was provoked somewhat by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) and his invitation to die in the ditches of Cadbury Camp. If Cadbury Camp be the symbol of Somerset, which I do not accept, I can only say that I could tell him some much more enlightening stories about Alfred, wholed his great revival from the heart of my constituency. I cannot forbear to point out that the Clifton suspension bridge, a well-known symbol of Bristol, is not used only for the passage of transport, and certain Bristol people find that it offers a wayout of their problems, whether of local government or otherwise. However, I make that point only in passing in reply to the suggestion about what we might do on Cadbury Camp.
This is a difficult problem, and its complications can, I suppose, be measured by the number of meetings which the Secretary of State and the Minister have been courteous enough to have with Somerset Members, by the amount of discussion we have had on it, and by the space taken on the Paper by our attempts to amend the Bill's provisions.
9.30 p.m.
There are over Bristol, as there are over several other places in the country, but in few to quite the same extent, irreconcilable problems. It is impossible to marry the main principles of the Bill and achieve the objectives that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister are working to.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, I support the principles of the Bill. I voted for its Second Reading. But there are contradictory principles over the problem of Avon and Somerset. Paragraph 29 of the White Paper makes it clear that we must seek as far as possible to preserve existing county boundaries. At the same time we are looking for a good urban-rural balance. To achieve that with Bristol and Somerset is impossible, and therefore one of them had to go. My right hon. Friends had to decide which one it should be. They chose the urban-rural balance and the Avon principle and, sadly, the principle of preserving county boundaries was abandoned with a vengeance.
Somerset finds itself not merely slightly reduced but traumatically truncated, from being fourteenth largest county to the fourth smallest. A county that has always been small is adjusted to that, and its staff is organised on that basis. But what is the prospect for Somerset now? It is the base for many operations that transcend the simple county boundary. It has been used by national Governments as a good base on which to expand and develop regional schemes. Suddenly a substantial county authority is to find itself having to think small. Suddenly some of its best servants will have to consider their future, and a serious disruption will take place.
Faced with a conflict between two major principles in the Bill, have we no alternatives? We have, and my right hon. Friend spelt them out in some detail. There are four essential proposals. The first is that which the Government made originally, which has been modified by the addition of Frome in Somerset. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton has clearly stated the problems that poses for Somerset. If it is to be the solution, it is at the expense of Somerset.
The second possible solution, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East put forward, is the Greater Bristol proposal or the Greater Somerset proposal, incorporating Avon and Somerset into one authority. That has its attractions, but they tend to diminish the further down into Somerset we move. They could not have my support, nor, I believe, my right hon. Friend's, because the other great principle with which it comes in conflict is that we are seeking a balance in local Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is seeking to establish authorities of sufficient scope to provide the necessary services and range but sufficiently local and sufficiently close for people to be able to identify with them. I believe that a greater Somerset, a merging of Areas 25 and 26, would not meet that last principle.
The third proposal, which is very much in line with the Amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol, South, is to have Bristol essentially as a metropolitan area and Somerset as it is. This runs contrary to one of the essential principles which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East put very fairly concerning people who are involved in an area, the travel-to-work patterns, the commuting distances, the shopping areas, the entertainment facilities, and their being within a recognisable area. There is a strong case for establishing a certain urban-rural balance with Avon albeit not to the same extent.
This brings me to the fourth alternative which is a valid compromise and which more satisfactorily meets the conflicting claims of the two authorities. My hon. Friend the Minister will know, as we know, that it is impossible to satisfy all the criteria by which the local government reform is being introduced. In the situation of Avon and Somerset something has to give and there must be some measure of compromise. I suggest that the fourth series of Amendments constitute the compromise arrangement that would give a tolerable balance to the situation. It would give additional size by the addition of Weston-super-Mare. The balance of Axbridge Rural District Council and the additional changes to the line to the east would increase the size of Somerset to 465,000 and give it a rateable value of £17 million. It would


provide an addition of virtually 20 per cent. of the population to Area 25—Somerset—while reducing the population of Avon by only 8 per cent.
It would enable a number of facilities that Somerset County Council has established in Weston-super-Mare to continue to be available. It would have the support of the regional hospital board. It is a base for fire, police and health and social services and it seems to me that it greatly minimises the disruption.
My hon. Friend will list a number of objections to that proposal. The first of these no doubt would be that it will upset the urban-rural balance. I wonder whether at the end of the debate, having listened to the speeches, he could continue to hold that view. The urban-rural balance is a fairly mythical concept when one considers that Weston-super-Mare is being included as part of the rural balance. The Minister will know from his recent visit that a town, able to stage a most successful Conservative local conference, can hardly be considered as a rural area. He should consider too that the population of Bristol proper is dropping and the population of the periphery is increasing, whether the immediate suburbs of Bristol can be classed as a rural area.
An examination of these points shows that the rural balance is a very tenuous argument. We are left asking where the line came from. We appreciate that it has never been changed since the Maud Report, with the minor exception of Frome, and no one has ever been able to discover who takes responsibility for drawing a line. It was originally in Maud, endorsed by the Labour Government, and endorsed again by my right hon. Friends. Its paternity has disappeared and certain of its findings were extremely dubious, even when they were originally put forward. There are considerable grounds for thinking that the line is already six years out of date.
It is pre-Severnside study, and all the demographic factors which have been produced since indicate that the changes in the area enable a substantial alteration to be made to the line. If these alterations were carried out and they made a small initial dent in the Minister's concept of the balance, that dent would

be very rapidly repaired within the next five years.
I sincerely hope that the alternative I am urging will be acceptable. Many of us on this side of the House, particularly hon. Members from Somerset, find themselves in an acutely difficult position on this issue. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said, we have sought to conduct this discussion and present our case responsibly, in the conviction that our case was amply good enough and argued itself, and that my right hon. Friend would be able to find some of our suggestions acceptable. Our feelings, although moderately expressed, are none the less as strong as any that have been expressed more vocally and more forcibly in the county. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development is aware of the strength of feeling.
I believe that there is a compromise which could meet the principles more accurately that my hon. Friend has been seeking to maintain throughout this understandably difficult Report stage. If we do not get a measure of concession, or agreement by my hon. Friend that compromise is possible, and if we are not allowed to vote on the alternative I favour, then regretfully, to show my feelings on this matter, I shall vote in support of Amendment No. 6.
My final point should be taken by my hon. Friend as being no departure from my position. At the very least, if no concession can be made on the main "green line" proposal with which he is familiar, the split parishes in the present proposals must be amended. The proposal in this regard is a nonsense. Any impartial observer reading the Bill for the first time and finding that the parishes are to be determined by consulting the contour map and establishing a line between the 500 and 800 feet contour, which cuts right through a series of parishes on the edge of the Mendips, will agree that this concept must be amended. If no alteration or concession is possible, then there must be some understanding about the financial situation of the future reduced county of Somerset, either by equalisation grant or rate deficiency grant or by whatever means my right hon. Friend thinks appropriate.

Mr. Wiggin: It would be right and proper, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to convey through you our thanks to Mr. Speaker for selecting Amendment No. 6and the kindred Amendments, because this is the first proper opportunity we have had of debating the difficulties of Somerset and Avon. Among the mass of Amendments in this group, basically seven alternatives are offered to the Government. I will address myself principally to those to which I have put my name. The first, which would overcome the majority of our difficulties, is to join together the proposed County of Avon and the existing County of Somerset. The second is to take the Borough of Weston-super-Mare and the rural district of Axbridge and return them to their rightful place in Somerset.
Shortly after publication of the White Paper in 1971—which seems in this context a long time ago—I suggested the proposition of a greater Somerset. On reflection I think that one should also have suggested a greater Gloucester or perhaps even a greater Wiltshire, to take into account Bristol or Bath.
9.45 p.m.
We have to apply ourselves only to the proposal of the Amendments. The merits of the proposal to amalgamate Avon and Somerset are self-apparent—a county of 1,300,000 that would be the fourth largest in population and rateable value. It would be a completely new county. All the critics of the existing Somerset County Council and Bath Council or Bristol Council would be answered by the creation of a totally new authority set up, I suspect, in totally new buildings. Whilst it would still contain the merits of the old boundaries, it would possess excellent communications with a motorway from north to south and east to west.
Geographically, it would be larger than the existing County of Somerset only by the area of Bristol and the rural districts surrounding Bristol that are already part of the Amendment. It would be the seventh largest in terms of area. I agree that this is big, but it is some way down the league table. Unhappily, vested interests in Bristol and Taunton fear that their old empires will be substantially destroyed, and the support that this proposition could have had has not been forthcoming.
The police will be forced to adopt an authority almost exactly the size of a combined county. It would have made a powerful gateway to the West and have had a substantial influence on regional planning. This proposal has been supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), who is prevented from speaking but who has made public statements favourable to the idea.
We turn to a compromise, one we have suggested many times, that the Borough of Weston-super-Mare and the Rural District of Axbridge be put back in Somerset. We have put forward this suggestion in the general belief that it was a reasonable alternative. It was carefully thought out and argued. It did not destroy the principles of the Bill and we all felt it was something the Government could perfectly easily adopt.
It would have given nearly 20 per cent. more population back to Somerset and lost only some 9 per cent. to Avon. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East, who strained my friendship somewhat by reading a letter from my own town clerk, said that the borough council had declared itself for Avon. It is perfectly true that it adopted that position and voted in favour of Avon. Those councillors are town people and that is the way they look at the matter and what they think.
Despite the expenditure of a substantial amount when this so-called referendum was being held—I prefer to call it a public opinion poll as a referendum results in certain powers when the result is announced; as does a plebiscite—when the Borough of Weston-super-Mare spent a substantial sum on advertising Avon, 70·7 per cent. voted for Somerset and in the Rural District of Axbridge 90·4 per cent. of those who returned their cards were in favour of staying in Somerset.
On Second Reading my right hon. Friend said:
I have endeavoured, to the maximum degree possible commensurate with bringing about a sensible measure of reform of local government, to pay respect to the natural loyalty of people towards their counties."—[Official Report, 16th November, 1971;Vol 826, c 235.]


I hope that that point has not been forgotten and that my hon. Friend will bear that statement in mind.
We have made it demonstrably clear how the people of Somerset feel about their ancient county. Weston-super-Mare is an important centre for Somerset. It tends to be forgotten that in the County of Avon it will be tucked away in one corner. It will be geographically in the wrong position. For many years it has been the largest town in Somerset. The recent Severnside Study has envisaged no large-scale development in the borough. A sample census as recently as 1966 showed that only 6 per cent. of the journeys to work originating in the Borough of Weston went to Bristol.
I was attacked for quoting that figure on the basis that it was out of date. A couple of months ago the county council planning department investigated the future of Weston and came out with a comprehensive document in which it proved that as a result of recent censuses only 4 per cent. of the journeys to work originating in Weston now go to Bristol, a reduction of 50 per cent. in six years, proving my point that Weston is a centre of its own which does not look to Bristol, Bath or Taunton.
It is the centre for a number of local administrative operations—the area planning office, the area offices for health and social security, divisional education and weights and measures. It is the headquarters of one of the three divisions of the fire brigade and the police divisional headquarters. A new technical college has been built there and we hope to start on our new hospital in 1973 or 1974.
The Rural District Council of Axbridge—and I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that 90·4 per cent. of the population said that it wanted to stay in Somerset—completely surrounds the Borough of Weston and it would be quite indivisible from it. To divide it so would be bad local government. The problem in all this is the City of Bristol, with a population of 426,000, and nearly half a million if contiguous built-up areas are included. It is obviously something which does not fit anywhere. The difficulty has been getting Bristol organised.
Somehow the Minister has found a solution for Teesside and for Cardiff. I would like him to look again to see whether he can find a solution for Bristol. We have heard a lot of talk about balance. Balance of what? Is it balance of town and country or balance of Bristol versusthe rest? What is the position about balance, whatever yardstick is used, in the remaining parts of the County of Somerset? It will be a rural desert, a rural plain without the necessary urban balance, without the essential rateable value. It will be the fourth smallest non-metropolitan county in England.
When these proposals were first announced I said that Somerset would be relegated to the fourth division. It becomes abundantly clear when we look art; this that it will be difficult even toget into the fourth division. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) asked how the line originated, who supported it and for what reason. I have yet to find an answer to that. The Clerk to the Axbridge Rural District Council wrote to the Department of the Environment and received a reply on 19th April, 1971, before the Bill was published and when the White Paper was still being constructed. The reply said:
The proposed boundary between Area 25 and 26 in your neighbourhood was arrived at after consideration of such factors as population, natural grouping and administrative convenience.
It is abundantly clear from any study of the line that it was chosen by someone with a pencil on a map, without any regard for population, natural grouping or administrative convenience. The fact remains that all the local authorities that have been consulted, including the Borough of Weston, although for different reasons, have criticised this line as being wrong and impracticable and say that it should be reorganised. True, we have had some minor concessions. It is better than the line that went through Pontin's ballroom but it is ludicrous to split the four parishes.
Sir John Wills, who is one of my constituents and an Alderman of the County Council, who comes from an old Somerset family, has written:
The most anomalous situation of all arises in Burrington, whose limestone gorge Burrington Combe is a living demonstration that its


parish is part of the Mendip escarpment. This will be divided at its lowest point, with a few yards of the Rock of Ages dividing at the same time one part of the historic Burrington Common from the remaining parts. The other result of this quite arbitrary dividing line will be that the Commoners of Burrington will be living in one county while most of their common, but not all of it, will be in another.
The four divided parishes should be put together again and returned to Somerset.
A point which has not been raised—and it is of vital importance to the majority of my constituents unless the Amendment is passed—is what is to happen to the area north of the Government's line between now and the creation of the new County of Avon. Already we hear that this or that school will not be developed and cannot be planned because the new authority will have the responsibility for it. Roads, libraries and all the other functions of top-tier authorities which are at present the responsibilities of county councils are in question. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give an assurance about this matter because there is substantial disquiet in my constituency on it.
The four Somerset Members have been very reasonable in the way they have tried to persuade the Government to change their mind. The Government's proposals have caused considerable turmoil and ill-feeling in our constituencies, and particularly in mine, and the Government appear to be inflexible except in a very minor way. As far as I can see, they have tabled no Amendments in this respect. I have always said that if Avon were to exist its boundary would have to encroach into Somerset. By saying that and that I would not support any proposal to retain Somerset's existing boundary, I have incurred the wrath of my constituents in Clevedon, Yatton, Cleeve and other areas.
However, in view of the Government's totally intransigent attitude, I am bound to say, having listened to the arguments, that I am persuaded that Amendment No. 6, although it may be open to substantial criticism, would allow the County of Somerset to remain as it is, which is the will of the people. Unless the Government propose some very substantial changes, I too will join my right hon. and hon. Friends in supporting the Amendment.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: I find it very difficult to sweep up for the Members representing Somerset after we have heard such an able defence of the county and of its people. The Government cannot be unaware of the strength of feeling and dismay in Somerset as a result of their proposals in the Bill. Those Members who intend or wish to support the Government's line in rejecting the Amendment should realise what they are doing. They are presiding, or seeking to preside, over the demise of a proud and long-standing county—one of the most beautiful in England if not in the world—which has provided a rich culture in the life of our country. That is what the Government intend to bring to an end. I hope that hon. Members realise what they are doing by taking such a serious step.
More important than the countryside, buildings and culture of the county are the people in it. They are capable and hard-working and are organised to provide a sensible, well-run and competent range of county services, together with many of the regional services which we require in the South-West. They have, with the City of Bath, one of the most efficient police forces in the country.
I am therefore extremely disappointed, as are my friends in the county, that the Government have made no concession to the careful arguments put forward and the reasoned attitude that we have adopted towards their proposals—proposals which would downgrade the County of Somerset to that of second-class status.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Local Government Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Murton.]

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Boscawen: By "second-class status", I mean that the county will be unable to provide, alone, services as efficient as those that it could provide before. It will be a county that will have stolen from it one-third of its area and one-third of its population. I remind hon. Members that the one-third of a population, largely rural-orientated, will


be having a forced marriage with a population of about 15 persons to the acre.
My first reason for rejecting the Government proposals is that they break up the focus of loyalty of many thousands of people towards their own county. The focus of loyalty to a county is of the greatest importance. My hon. Friend, the Minister, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have shown little regard for the feelings of the people in this matter—feelings of loyalty that go back for many hundreds of years. These things should not be tampered with unless there is a very good reason, and I do not believe that there is a very good reason on this occasion. Nor do I believe that we shall achieve a better solution as a result; in fact, by truncating Somerset we shall achieve a bad, unwise and impractical solution. It is still worse for the minority of rural Somerset, which will be forced into a marriage with Bristol.
The sole reason given by the Government for their proposal is that they must make Avon into a county large enough to provide a rural balance. Many of my hon. Friends have explained that the idea of a rural balance is nonsense, and that it does not exist in this case. In order to achieve a rural balance between Bristol and the hinterland it would be necessary to go out into the County of Somerset, which we believe would be quite impractical, and would provide quite the wrong solution. Bristol is a special case, and must be treated in a special manner. The rural hinterland surrounding it must be kept as small as possible, thereby keeping Somerset large enough to carry out the indispensable services efficiently, and to make the best use of its existing staff, accommodation and equipment.
Amendment No. 41 provides the best compromise solution. There may be others, but at least that does not detract too much from the County of Avon, and it gives a much better answer in the case of the County of Somerset.
Reasons have been put forward why the bringing back of the Boroughs of Weston and Axbridge rural district into the County of Somerset would greatly improve that county, in particular the area of planning, which is very important. We have in Somerset some of the main quarrying areas for the supply of

materials for our roads. They have posed very difficult problems of planning. The Somerset County Council has done great work on the planning of quarries and it is essential that many of the quarries are kept in one county, which means drawing the line between Somerset and Avon as far north as possible.
We in Somerset know a great deal about conservation, which has been of a high order. We shall be providing the playground for the wealthy tourist centres of Avon if the line is drawn as proposed, but we will get back far fewer benefits. It is regrettable that the County of Avon, by keeping the Borough of Weston-super-Mare, will be getting the rich pickings of the tourist trade while Somerset will be left to go cap-in-hand for the rate support grant. This is the sort of relationship which exists between the pimp and the prostitute and which is being forced on a virtuous county. I deplore the Minister's immorality in this respect.
Amendment No. 6 does not produce the best solution for the area but at least, by being defeated on it, the Government would be given the opportunity to think again and produce a better solution for our area. The County of Avon is not a good idea as it stands and it should be killed tonight. That is why I shall be voting in the Lobby.

Mr. Graham Page: May I go back to the beginning of the debate and deal with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks)? Throughout, my hon. Friends have said that they might support that Amendment in order to impress their point of view on the Government. First, let me again quote the White Paper on metropolitan districts. It says that the metropolitan pattern
is suitable only where a county is divisible into districts all of which are populous and compact.
Yet we have here, in "Greater Bristol" as the hon. Member called it, a Bristol which would have 70 per cent. of its population in the city and the rest, 187,000, in two other districts of 110,000 and 77,000. It would by that means just avoid being a two-district county, although the hon. Member suggested that as an alternative.
Practically everything that could be wrong with this proposal is wrong. As a


county area Bristol would be divided from its area of influence to the southwest, which the Avon boundary now in the Bill includes with Bristol, since the Amendment would exclude all North Somerset.
Furthermore, Bristol would account for nearly 70 per cent. of the county, overwhelming the others on the county council. Such a relationship would be keenly resented, I think, by Bristol neighbours. The tactlessness of the hon. Member in calling it "Greater Bristol" underlines his attitude towards the whole county.

Mr. Michael Cocks: Perhaps what the hon. Gentleman is describing can be attributed to the wishy-washy compromise that is being forced on us. Perhaps I have gone too far the other way.

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman thinks our proposal is wishy-washy. His proposal is utterly ridiculous and goes against everything we discussed in Committee. He admitted that the smaller districts are too far below the criterion we have mentioned as being that which should be applied in deciding the minimum population for education and the personal social services. His proposal does not stand up to any of the tests.
The whole point of this debate centres on a dispute over the boundary between two counties. It is suggested, on the one hand, that we should favour one county in the drawing of that boundary, while on the other hand it is suggested that we should favour the other county.
Not only the future of Somerset is at issue, but the future of Avon, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) pointed out. He admitted that he wishes to destroy Avon. We have decided that there shall be a County of Avon and that, I think, is generally accepted, although the boundary of that county is in dispute and the influence of Bristol within the county may be questioned.
I therefore propose to address the remainder of my remarks to an acceptance of the principle of an Avon County and to see where the right line between the new Avon County and the new Somerset County should be drawn.
It is important, for two reasons, that the area of Avon should not be reduced further. The first is that the area of

influence of so large a town as Bristol, with its population of 425,000, should not be divided between two counties. This goes to the root of the dispute.
The alteration northward of the line from that which now appears in the Bill would, in my view, divide the area of influence of the built-up area of Bristol. A county boundary should—this is what we have tried to do in drawing it—reflect the patterns of life today and for some time ahead for the best administration of services and it should not separate parts of the same growth area. This is the first essential point.
Secondly, it is essential that Bristol should not account for as much as 50 per cent. of that new county. On the basis of the first consideration to which I have referred, the Severnside Study suggests that Bristol and South Gloucestershire should go together.
It also suggests that Bristol should be in the same county as both and that the towns of Weston-super-Mare, Clevedon, Portishead and Radstock, within the sphere of influence of Bristol, should go together. I speak of the "influence of Bristol" and this influence will undoubtedly grow with the M5 link.
The second consideration to which I have referred also concerns the balance between the new districts of Avon within the County of Avon itself. There is evidence that many of the Somerset areas in Avon already see Bristol's share of the county, which is 47 per cent., as too large. If that share is increased by moving further territory out of the County of Avon, the county will be regarded as subordinate to the Bristol district.
10.15 p.m.
If I have got the argument correctly from Somerset, it is mainly that the new Somerset as now set out in the Bill will be too small in population to be a viable county. This is certainly untrue. The new Somerset, with a figure of 385,000 population, would have 135,000 more than the minimum population needed to sustain an efficient administration of the education and personal social services. It is very likely that this new County of Somerset will reach a population of 400,000 in the next couple of years; it will take only an increase of less than 2 per cent. a year to reach this.
As has already been mentioned, the new Somerset will be larger than Cornwall, larger than Salop and larger than Northumberland, and in rateable value per head it will be slightly better off than the present administrative county's £36·8. Somerset, as I understand it, tends to take the line that the new county's population will present the county administration and the machine of administration within the county with great difficulties, that there will be difficulty in the continuation of the Somerset county administration as we know it now, and that it will not be able to attract the high quality of officer it has succeeded in getting in the past or, it was suggested, retain its computer.
I am not prepared to decide local government boundaries on the basis of the ownership of a computer by a county, but I do look quite seriously at the question of whether we are reducing the county in size so that it will not in future be able to attract the right officers. I think that in this case that argument is quite untenable. The attractiveness of the place, rather than Somerset's size is surely an important reason for people coming to work for the Somerset County Council.
There is, of course, the powerful argument that the local people do not want to be in Avon——

Mr. du Cann: Before the Minister moves on to that point, perhaps he will let me question him on the subject of staff. He was suggesting that the county would be able to afford the present high levels of staff. Will he tell me how, for instance, he thinks that with a very much lower rateable value we can afford the same organisation in the county surveyor's department, or the county education department or the county architect's department? In my judgment, it simply will not be possible in the future.

Mr. Page: It does not depend on the size of the population or the rateable value whether one can employ the qualified and expert officers that a county council requires. Anyway, the reduction is not as great as all that. Some of the exaggerated phrases used about destroying Somerset are not true on the figures of either population or rateable value.
I was about to deal with the point that the local people concerned do not want to be in Avon. I observed that the Somerset County Council held a referendum in North Somerset last winter, when 62·4 per cent. of the electorate—that is 45·8 per cent. of the population; less than half the population—expressed the preference for Somerset as against Avon when asked:
The Local Government Bill now before Parliament proposes the inclusion within the new county of Avon of the greater part of North Somerset with some 210,000 people, together with Bristol, Bath and South Gloucestershire. Would you prefer to be in the new county of Somerset or in the new county of Avon?
The person was required to put a tick in a little square below that question. The poll results do not support the argument that the county boundary in the Bill should be altered, but merely show that 62 per cent. of the electorate very naturally expressed a preference to stay in the same place, in Somerset. What it does not show is that they actively disliked the prospect of being in Avon—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] Indeed, when one considers the intense pro-Somerset propaganda and people's natural tendency to be loyal to what they have already, that 62 per cent. is surprisingly low compared with other referenda which have been presented to me in the course of this local government reorganisation.
I ought now to deal with the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), Amendment No. 273. The effect of his Amendment would be to transfer five parishes with total population of about 5,400 people from the northern end of Avon to the new Gloucestershire. It is sought to incorporate those parishes in the new Gloucestershire, chiefly on the grounds that their strong economic, employment and educational links, as my right hon. Friend clearly explained, are with the centre of Dursley in Gloucestershire.
Conversely, he pointed out that many Dursley residents work in Berkeley. I am told that Berkeley power station employs about 1,000 people. The Hinton parish contains Sharpness Docks, which forms part of the Gloucester Docks and Canal System. It seemed to us, in drawing the boundary to the north of Avon, that the Sharpness Docks represented the


right northern boundary, as the docks were part of the dock set-up of Severn-side.

Mr. Corfield: My hon. Friend will recall that there were also docks at Gloucester, so the arguments work equally that way.

Mr. Page: But looking at the pull of work and the development in the north of Avon at present, it would appear to be as strongly to Thornbury in the south as to Gloucestershire in the north, or to Dursley in the east.
This issue was discussed in very great detail at the consultative meeting which I held at Bath last September. I do not think that there is any ideal boundary in a case such as this. My right hon. Friend's argument might have been applied just as much to transferring Dursley into the new Avon as to transferring Berkeley into the new Gloucester. It has seemed right in this case to retain the boundaries of the rural district council without splitting it. It may be right for the Local Government Boundary Commission to review this in due course. But it is right, for the purpose of the Bill, to retain the boundary of the rural district council.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) offered, as always, regional government as the solution. This is no solution whatever in this case, although in many instances I go along with him in some arguments on those lines. On the other hand, I appreciate most sincerely the work of my right hon. and hon. Friends upon the various solutions which they have put forward and the arguments with which they have supported those possible solutions to the problem of the line between the two counties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) inquired about the transition period. That is in the hands of the Joint Committees now sitting, which will deal with those problems and, I am sure, will deal with them satisfactorily. What we are mainly concerned with here is not a short-term matter of the transition between the existing local government and the future local government but the long-term solution. I put forward to the House the Government's solution as being better than any

of those which have been put forward in the Amendments today.

Mr. Wiggin: We are in the slight difficulty that Somerset is now not co-operating on the joint Committees.

Mr. Page: Perhaps when the decision of the House is made today Somerset will be put out of doubt as to whether to take part in these Committees. I hope that in future it will take part. In other areas which will be affected by Amendments on the Notice Paper there has been some reluctance to take part in the joint Committees. I hope that when the House has finally come to a decision the joint Committees will continue to work out the solutions for the transition period.
In trying to solve the problem we have paid great attention to the great loyalties to the areas in which people live—in this case the great loyalty to Somerset; we do not under-estimate that in any way. Loyalties in culture, environment and sport are clearly factors which we must take into account. However I am not sure that that type of loyalty is an essential ingredient of effective and efficient local government. What we want is interest in the area in which people live and work and participation in the affairs of government in the area.
For that purpose we must look to the past trend of development and how the area will develop in future—not only industrially, but residentiallyalso—the trend of work, of shopping, of pleasure, of leisure, and the general pattern of development and life in the area. I am convinced that Avon is a county with a balanced structure and that it does not materially damage Somerset. To talk of Somerset in future as a rural desert is an exaggeration with which I cannot agree.
I do not believe that the reduction in size of Somerset to its new proposed size will destroy the county in any way. There is no question of choosing between which county to hurt. There is no question of the demise of a county, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wells suggested. There are two counties here which we believe will fit the pattern of life and work and provide good local government.

Mr. Tom King: If my hon. Friend is not able to accept the other Amendments, surely he is not leaving the dotted line


across the contour and will make some comment about that and the extraordinary anomaly of the split parishes.

Mr. Page: The line drawn in the White Paper went along the top of the Mendips. On studying that and discussing it with people in the area, it was decided that it was wrong to leave the line there. It was wise to put it, not along the valley, because that would split residential development, but up along the side of the Mendips and use a contour for that purpose. It cuts some parishes in half,

but it does not cut any reasonable development, either residential or otherwise. If this needs tidying up, this is just the sort of point which the Boundary Commission can deal with at a later stage. From a local government point of view, although it may be a little distressing for a farm to be cut into two counties, this is not an essential point from a local government point of view.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 177.

Division No. 126.]
AYES
[10.30 p.m.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Garrett, W. E.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Armstrong, Ernest
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Atkinson, Norman
Golding, John
Murray, Ronald King


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Oakes, Gordon


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
O'Halloran, Michael


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
O'Malley, Brian


Benyon, W.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oram, Bert


Biffen, John
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Orbach, Maurice


Bishop, E. S.
Hardy, Peter
Oswald, Thomas


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Horam, John
Palmer, Arthur


Body, Richard
Huckfield, Leslie
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pavitt, Laurie


Boscawen, Robert
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pentland, Norman


Bradley, Tom
Hunter, Adam
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
James, David
Prescott, John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Janner, Greville
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
John, Brynmor
Price, William (Rugby)


Buchan, Norman
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Probert, Arthur


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Johnson, Walter(Derby, S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Judd, Frank
Roper, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rose, Paul B.


Cohen, Stanley
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Concannon J. D.
Kinnock, Neil
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Lawson, George
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Leadbitter, Ted
Sillars, James


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Sinclair, Sir George


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Leonard, Dick
Skinner, Dennis


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Small, William


Davidson, Arthur
Lomas, Kenneth
Spearing, Nigel


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McBride, Neil
Stallard, A. W.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
McCartney, Hugh
Strang, Gavin


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
McGuire, Michael
Swain, Thomas


Deakins, Eric
Mackie, John
Tinn, James


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Mackintosh, John P.
Tomney, Frank


Dempsey, James
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Urwin, T. W.


Doig, Peter
McNamara, J. Kevin
Varley, Eric G.


Dormand, J. D.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Vickers, Dame Joan


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marks, Kenneth
Watkins, David


Dunn, James A.
Marquand, David
Weitzman, David


Dunnett, Jack
Marsden, F.
Wellbeloved, James


Eadle, Alex
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Edelman, Maurice
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Whitlock, William


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mayhew, Christopher
Wiggin, Jerry


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Meacher, Michael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ellis, Tom
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Evans, Fred
Mendelson, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mikardo, Ian
Woof, Robert


Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Millan, Bruce



Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Miller, Dr. M. S.



Foley, Maurice
Milne, Edward
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ford, Ben
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Forrester, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Donald Coleman.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
Raison, Timothy


Allson, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Havers, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hawkins, Paul
Redmond, Robert


Astor, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Hiley, Joseph
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Awdry, Daniel
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Holland, Philip
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Balniel, Lord
Hordern, Peter
Ridsdale, Julian


Bell, Ronald
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hunt, John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Blaker, Peter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rost, Peter


Bossom, Sir Clive
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Royle, Anthony


Bowden, Andrew
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Scott, Nicholas


Braine, Sir Bernard
Kimball, Marcus
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bray, Ronald
Kinsey, J. R.
Sharples, Richard


Brewis, John
Kirk, Peter
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Kitson, Timothy
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Skeet, T. H. H


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Knox, David
Soref, Harold


Carlisle, Mark
Lane, David
Speed, Keith


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Spence, John


Chapman, Sydney
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stainton, Keith


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Loveridge, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Luce, R. N.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
MacArthur, Ian
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh. W.)


Cockeram, Eric
McCrindle, R. A.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Cooper, A. E.
McLaren, Martin
Stokes, John


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stuattaford, Dr. Tom


Cormack, Patrick
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sutcliffe, John


Costain, A. P.
Maddan, Martin
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Crouch, David
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Crowder, F. P.
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Mawby, Ray
Tebbit, Norman


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Temple, John M.


Drayson, G. B.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Elliot. Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Emery, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Eyre, Reginald
Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Farr, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Trew, Peter


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Moate, Roger
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fidler, Michael
Money, Ernle
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Monro, Hector
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Montgomery, Fergus
Ward, Dame Irene


Fortescue, Tim
More, Jasper
Warren, Kenneth


Fowler, Norman
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Weatherill, Bernard


Fox, Marcus
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Fry,Peter
Mudd, David
Wilkinson, John


Gibson-Watt, David
Neave, Airey
Winterton, Nicholas


Goodhew, Victor
Normanton, Tom
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gower, Raymond
Onslow, Cranley
Woodnutt, Mark


Gray, Hamish
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Worsley, Marcus


Green, Alan
Parkinson, Cecil
Younger, Hn. George


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury. St. Edmunds)
Percival, Ian



Grylls, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner



Gummer, Selwyn
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gurden, Harold
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Mr. Michael Jopling and


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Mr. Oscar Murton.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. du Cann: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of that extremely close result, would it be in order for me to ask the Minister if he would be good enough to reconsider the future of Somerset?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not unprecedented with a vote as narrow as that for the Minister in charge of the debate to state the Government's intentions.

Mr. Speaker: However that may be. I intend to call the next Amendment

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I beg to move Amendment No. 301, in page 192, line 8, at beginning insert—

Cleveland

District (a)

The county borough of Hartlepool.

In the administrative county of Durham,

the rural district of Stockton.

In the county borough of Teesside—

the urban district of Stockton;

the urban district of Billingham.

District (b)

The county borough of Teesside, with

the exception of urban districts of Billingham and Stockton.

In the administrative county of Yorkshire, North Riding—the urban district of Guisborough, Loftus, Saltburn and Murske-by-the-Sea and Skelton and Brotton.

In the rural district of Stokesley, the parishes of Castlelevington, Hilton, Ingle by, Burwick, Kirklevington, Maltby, Nunthorpe and Yarm.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we are to take the following Amendments:

No. 61, in page 199, line 36, at end insert—

Cleveland
The county boroughs of Hartlepool and Teesside.
In the administrative county of Durham,
the rural district of Stockton.
In the administrative county of Yorkshire, North Riding—
the urban districts of Guisborough, Loftus, Saltburn and Marske-by-the-Sea and Skelton and Brotton;
in the rural district of Stokesley, the parishes of Castlevington, Hilton, Ingleby Barwick, Kirklevington, Maltby, Nunthorpe and Yarm

The Amendment to that Amendment—sub-Amendment (a)—in line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 8.

No. 68, in page 200, line 15, column 2, leave out 'Teesside and Tyneside' and insert:
'Cleveland and Tyne and Wear'.

No. 85, in page 201, line 44, column 2, leave out 'Durham and Teesside' and insert 'Cleveland and Durham'.

No. 102, in page 203, leave out lines 5 to 19.

Mr. Leadbitter: The Minister will not be surprised to find Amendment No. 301

on the Order Paper. Before I begin to deal with it in detail I should make it clear to the House and to my colleagues from the region concerned that I will not argue the question of boundaries or new boundaries. I will not repeat the arguments we had in Standing Committee about the rural areas of the North Riding of Yorkshire. I will argue the case for a metropolitan status within the present recommended boundaries laid down by the Secretary of State.
The arguments which were put from both sides of the Standing Committee concerning the proposals for a non-metropolitan county were sufficiently strong to cause the Minister to change them and to issue a new consultative document. Even before the Committee stage, areas north of Hartlepool were withdrawn. All of this showed that the Minister accepted that there was a problem in establishing a non-metropolitan county on Teesside. The hon. Members for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) and Cannock (Mr. Cormack) have made a further plea to leave out the remaining rural areas in the Stokesley rural district, which are included in the Secretary of State's proposals, and I support them. In Standing Committee we were consistent in this argument. For different reasons we sought to achieve the same ends. Between us we have persuaded the Minister to produce a more reasonable boundary. I hope that he will go that little bit further tonight in answer to the plea from the two hon. Members.
My submission that the county should have a metropolitan status arises in part from the generally accepted difficulty of creating a non-metropolitan county in a highly urbanised area, situated around one of the most important river developments in the United Kingdom. The National Ports Council says that this is one of the 15 major river and port establishments in the United Kingdom. The problem persists, and I hope that if the logical steps are taken we shall have a complete urbanised area.
The position originally proposed in the Bill as early as February 1971, has been altered by the Minister, and he has been pressed by argument to make the boundaries as they are now proposed. I agree with the steps that have been


taken. While I have not got all I wanted, I gained more than I expected up to that point in Committee. The Minister's co-operation was appreciated.
10.45 p.m.
But the urbanised areas of Teesside and Hartlepool are now seen to fit not into any accepted pattern of boundaries, taking rural areas into account, to justify a non-metropolitan county. Whereas the Minister had an argument in the beginning on a non-metropolitan basis, he has conceded the point when the criteria have gone. He showed considerable concern during the Standing Committee proceedings, which brought difficulties for him, about the dominance of the Teesside County Borough. He continually exposed the increasing weakness of his case for a non-metropolitan county. He said:
It would be wholly wrong, whether this is a non-metropolitan or a metropolitan county, to divide again the County Borough of Teesside…it has made all its investment in a county borough of that size, and it would be wholly wrong to tear it to pieces…"—[Official Report, Standing Committee D; 20th January, 1972. c. 816–817.]
Later he said:
One result of concern among local authorities in the Teesside County has been for them to suggest that Teesside County Borough might be divided into separate districts in the new county…I think that this would be nonsense…having developed it as one county borough it would be an enormous and unnecessary upheaval for it to be split into districts merely to get a balanced county."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D; 25th January, 1972, c. 941.]
Those firm commitments have been destroyed. To avoid the possibility of going into Durham, Teesside County Borough volunteered its own demise. Fragmentation suddenly became respectable. Where division was invalid to achieve a balanced non-metropolitan county, it suddenly became a condition to hang on to the remains of the original proposal, which by no stretch of the imagination could be described as a balanced non-metropolitan county.
Here is the serious illogicality of the position. The Minister was emphatic that Teesside County Borough should not be divided. He said that it would be a nonsense even for the sake of a balanced non-metropolitan county. But, since that debate in Committee on 20th

January, the county borough itself, to save itself from going into Durham, has said that it will separate, that it will fragment. The Minister, despite what he said earlier, accepts that proposition. We now have a non-metropolitan county which is not a balanced county because the rural elements, part of the major criteria for a non-metropolitan county, have been removed. Where the metropolitan borough had not to be divided for the sake of a balanced county, it is now to be divided for the sake of an unbalanced county—a remarkable situation.
On 9th March, the Minister issued new guidelines to the Local Boundaries Commission-designate. He said that the proposed new county, to be named "Cleveland" under the Secretary of State's Amendment,
…should be divided into not less than four new districts with populations comparable as is reasonably practicable having regard in particular to the pattern of local government before the establishment of the Teesside county borough.
Now we have the remarkable situation in which we are told about the difficulties of division when I argue for a metropolitan base in an urbanised area, but then go back to pre-1968, before Teesside County Borough was created, and decide that within four years of its creation it can be swept aside and fragmented only for a non-metropolitan county situation, not because the Minister thought of it first but because certain people in Teesside County Borough found that this was the only way to persuade him to keep them out of Durham, which is a case for which I have never argued. Therefore, we now have the division made official. On population figures, it cannot even be one district in the new county. It cannot even stand as one district.
The Minister said, when dealing with the effect of leaving out the Whitbys and the parish of Stokesly, that the Teesside County Borough would remain not merely with 63·3 per cent. of the population of the county but with 70 per cent. He was concerned about its dominance over the rest of the county. But the rest of the county has largely disappeared. We are left virtually with Teesside County Borough and Hartlepool. In withdrawing from his previous argument for keeping the county borough intact, his


population argument led to a further conflict of reasoning. He told the Standing Committee:
Where we have a compact population, a continuous build-up over a small area, the area is a candidate for metropolitan status."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 20th January, 1972; c. 816.]
Where is that candidature now? Tees-side and Hartlepools together have a population of 503,000 and an area of 127 square miles but one area will have a population of 597,000 and that in an area of 426 square miles. The issue of compactness is not in doubt. With the rural areas taken out, Teesside is admitted to have 70 per cent. of the population and Hartlepools more than 16 per cent. of it. There could not be a better illustration of compactness, but the Minister refutes that argument.
He went on:
It may seem to be a small movement of percentage but removing the country areas from the town areas changes the nature altogether. The town and country argument was a strong argument for this county."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25th January, 1972; c. 942.]
Now the country has been taken out and the town left; how can there be a strong argument for a non-metropolitan county in such circumstances?
Teesside County Borough has already virtually come to an end, for it cannot carry on any long-term planning because the Local Boundaries Commission-Designate is already receiving from authorities in the area proposals for districts, of which there are not to be fewer than four, which means that they must be based on the complete dismemberment of the county borough.
When I first discussed metropolitan status, it never occurred to me to talk about dismemberment of Teesside County Borough. I argued then that Hartlepools, which in 1967 was made up of an amalgamation of Hartlepool, with its 800-year-old charter, and West Hartlepool, a township with a remarkable record in shipbuilding and other achievements and created in the middle of the 19th century, could hardly be re-organised so soon after amalgamation.
The Maud Commission was sitting at that time—something else that I opposed. Certain academics and others who think they know it all produced a compromise

of the most remarkable kind. But at least in my part of the world we were consistent. We told the Labour Government that they could hardly produce an amalgamation of such importance in 1967, and in 1968 the amalgamation of five towns on Teesside, and then plan for their dismemberment in four years, giving them functions and status totally inconsistent with their records and achievements.
11.0 p.m.
I say "Take this creation and use the geographical situation, utilise the river and port base for a metropolitan district north of the Tees, including an amalgamated Hartlepools and a metropolitan district south of the Tees, including the newly-formed Teesside borough". That is the logical step which we have consistently put forward.
We have come up against the problems of population and compactness. The Minister has put himself in this position through his reasoning. In the White Paper at paragraph 31 it says:
The metropolitan pattern is suitable only where a county is divisible into districts all of which are populous and compact.
Paragraph 8 says:
And, above all else, a genuine local democracy implies that decisions…should be seen to be taken as locally as possible.
If that were not enough the last sentence of paragraph 13 reads:
The Government must seek efficiency, but where the arguments are evenly balanced their judgment will be in favour of responsibility being exercised at the more local level.
I want to test some of those arguments because I say that we have an area which is populous, compact, which can be divided into districts with a population and rateable value stronger and more viable than the majority of districts in the present proposals for metropolitan counties. I emphasise that.
There are other strong grounds for making districts such as the Hartlepools a metropolitan district. The Minister was good enough to meet Members from the area before making his present proposals public. I should like him to listen carefully, because I do not want to misquote him. He said to me that he thought that the area would qualify for metropolitan status in about ten years. His knowledge of the growth of the population in the area makes such a


prediction natural. We are responsible Members, anxious to establish our case, not on questionable criteria, not on the basis of a pressure group, or on submissions by powerful interests, or on petitions which misrepresent the facts, or on spending £10,000 in employing a specialist consultant, as did Teesside. We are concerned about devising a sound administrative local government for this area in which there have already been these reorganisations, in 1967 and 1968. Knowing that the growth in this area is running at about 10 per cent. every ten years, it is not sound local government thinking to say that we might achieve metropolitan status in ten years. Everybody knows that the area is not getting the chance to settle down. We must have stability and continuity. There must be an end to changes based on considering which are not related to the criteria for devising sound local government.
A more important consideration from my point of view is the record of towns such as Hartlepool. One expects a reasonable reaction based upon this record because it is safer in public life to rely upon the success of what has been done. It is bad enough to have to deal with failures, but in the case of a success story we must use the criteria which have helped to bring it about as a basis for measuring other requirements. As an all-purpose authority, Hartlepool can and does provide first-class social and personal services. It carries out local government and planning and development responsibilities at levels and unit costs which represent an achievement and efficiency which cannot be challenged. The education, local health and welfare, fire service, library, highway and housing services in Hartlepool are of the highest order and are provided at costs which the majority of larger authorities cannot match.
I could make the same argument for the local authorities which existed before the creation of the county borough of Teesside. I could make out an excellent argument about the achievements of Billingham, Eston and Stockton. Therefore, let us take care before we throw away the general fabric of local government as we know it in this area in exchange for something which is not only not yet tested but which many of us feel from experience cannot evoke the

same responses in the community or match what has been achieved in the utilisation of resources.
The Minister's rigid argument about efficiency arising from larger local government units is not supported by the facts. There is no correlation between size and efficiency in public affairs. Such an argument is alien to the British character. Areas like Cambridge, Durham and our great boroughs have characteristics of their own. We cannot destroy those lightly, merely to fit in with some theoretical approach to the problem. If the White Paper says that we must deal with things that can be done at local level, let us say what we mean and do what we mean.
In Hartlepools we pose some additional evidence to press upon the Government the need to promote local government reorganisation which has some regard to the capacity and the resources of the area, and to the provision of those amenities and environmental conditions which are in the best interests of the people. Here is an exceptionally short list. The development of the central area of The Hartlepools is unique in the United Kingdom. Its new shopping centre is the envy of the North. There are its new colleges of further education and art, less than seven years old; its old people's homes and child care facilities; its increasing provision for the disabled and the chronic sick, as well as its youth centres. There is its new swimming pools, and the development of its open spaces and areas for recreation.
These are not examples of inefficiency, lack of viability, or remoteness from the people; they are outstanding claims for achievements that show the adequacy of resources and the enlargement and effectiveness of the democratic process, where remoteness from the people has no place. I doubt very much whether we get an enlarged and more effective democratic process purely by increasing the size of local authorities. Practice has shown that the larger the authority the more problematical is the effective democratic process.
There is no case for losing the powers that authorities such as Hartlepools have. There is every case for giving back the powers to the townships that make up the present Teesside County Borough, which will, oddly enough, be the centres


of the new districts recommended in the report of the Boundary Commission.
My main argument is that we need a metropolitan base which can fit in with the criteria that the Minister has laid down. Therefore—if he will take note of this base—in my Amendment a metropolitan district north of the Tees—District (a)—will have a population of 221,000 and will also have a rateable value of £11,344,000. The population base south of the Tees, making up the townships which will themselves be the centres of the district—particularly Middlesbrough—will be 282,000, with a rateable value of £14,372,000. These factors—population, rateable value, compactness and resources—fit in admirably with the Minister's criteria for a metropolitan county.
I believe that the Government should think again. These population and rateable value bases compare more favourably with the other metropolitan districts. The areas are reasonably compact.
I want to say a word or two about our discussions in Committee. An hon. Member who criticises a Minister must be careful, since the same technique might one day be used against him. Having given these quotations in a critical way, therefore, I should like to congratulate the Minister on the way in which he has addressed himself to these problems. Ministers are not necessarily masters of their own fate when piloting through a Bill. I hope that the Minister will in return appreciate the logic of my argument. Since he himself believes that this area might become metropolitan in ten years' time, he might save us from that agony by saying that my argument has been well put, and that he accepts it.

Mr. Speaker: Well put—at some length.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Cormack: I want to speak to sub-Amendment (a) to Amendment No. 61, concerning seven parishes in the rural district of Stokesley.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) and I, in whose names the sub-Amendment appears, greatly appreciate the consideration which the Minister has shown as a result of our debates in Committee.
This small sub-Amendment merely says to the Minister, "Please think again about these parishes, and decide what likely development there will be within them." If my hon. Friend does this, he is likely to conclude that these parishes, in particular Kirklevington, Castlevington and Hilton, are small villages where future development is very unlikely and which are almost certain to retain their essentially rural character, which is much more in keeping with North Yorkshire than with the proposed Cleveland County.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks and I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to give a definitive reply tonight. Because we are so grateful for what he has done in the past, we should like him at least to say that he will refer the matter to the Boundary Commission so that the door is not closed. The people of these parishes will have good cause to thank him if he gives that assurance.

Mr. William Rodgers: In dealing with what is now to become Cleveland, the Government have reached the very summit of the muddle and incompetence which they have shown at every stage of the Bill. [Hon. Members: "No."] If they have not reached the summit on this, I await with interest the story still to be unfolded. If the Secretary of State congratulates himself on the story on this occasion, then his standards must be even lower than many of us suppose.
The original proposal was much different from that which will eventually appear in the Bill. The Secretary of State made a concession in the first published version of the Bill, and the Minister made a further concession in Committee which he is now anxious to withdraw. It is a remarkable story of amputation and plastic surgery which any hon. Member who has not read it in full could read with satisfaction and pleasure as an indication of how large a mess a Government can make of a situation of which they have no local experience.
We are aware of the commendable buccaneering conduct of the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), who played his own part, perfectly legitimately, in supporting some of his hon. Friends. But the Secretary of State should know that no action of this Government has made


more enemies of his friends than the action of his hon. Friend the Minister of State in Committee.
We are left with a situation in which, although the original solution was right, we are offered something rather better than what was offered in Committee. I suppose, that being the case, we must make the best of a botched-up job.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) was his usual persuasive self in his arguments to night. He was a robust, independent member of the Committee, and if I felt that he could persuade the Government that there should be a change in the direction he indicated, I would assure him of my full support. But if we are not to have a metropolitan county, then it should go on record that Cleveland County will be less than it should have been and that we could have avoided a great deal of pain and confusion had the Government made up their mind clearly in the light of local opinion and put firm proposals to the House in the first place.
If the Government are unable to accept the persuasive arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools—and nobody has been a greater, clearer and more determined advocate of his constituents than my hon.Friend—I hope the Minister will at least give an assurance that careful consideration will be given to the break up of districts within the new Cleveland County.
There is a strong case for three districts south of the river, but I shall be persuaded by my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn), of the wisdom of any decision that is finally reached. As for the North Bank, I hope that we shall see two districts. One possibility would be for the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools to be joined with the Stockton rural district. But if that is not an acceptable solution, then, leaving Stockton and Billingham as the other district, it might be possible to separate the Stockton rural district, giving part to The Hartlepools and part to Stockton and Billingham.
It is to be hoped that the Government will give more attention to the problem of the districts, for it seems that we shall end up with a solution that is totally within Cleveland County, and that is not

desired. This will make nonsense of putting town and country together, but at least it will represent a solution which will last for some time.

Mr. Graham Page: I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) say, in effect, that it was strange for a Minister to be flexible and to listen to the debate in Committee. It was astonishing for the hon. Gentleman to say that to take the advice of the local authorities concerned before acting was incompetent of the Minister. If there ever were a case when Parliament worked as a debating chamber, wishing to be assisted by the views of the local authorities concerned this case affecting Teesside was it.
In the White Paper we originally said that a Teesside county would include certain of the Durham parishes in the Easington rural district. On reconsidering the matter, we returned those parishes to Durham County, which reduced the size of the new Teesside County and left it a reasonably-sized county.
On examining the matter again in Committee, the issue of the southern area of that county was raised. Considering Whitby rural district and Whitby urban district, it seemed that we should allow the local authorities concerned to reconsider the whole principle of the Teesside County as it had been set out in the Bill. Should it be reduced to a small size, should it remain the size it was in the Bill, or should it form part of Durham County in future?
Therefore, when these points were raised in Committee I thought it proper to put the matter before the local authorities concerned, and to take their view on the basis that I was being pressed to reduce the Teesside County as we had conceived it to an area in which one county borough within that county would be dominant. That did not fit in with our concept of either a metropolitan or a non-metropolitan county. The reply we had from the local authorities concerned was on balance in favour of retaining the Teesside County, and the authorities within that Teesside County made proposals which overcome the difficulty of the dominance of one particular district.
On that basis I informed the hon Members concerned—and my recollection


is that I informed the Committee as well—that we would proceed with a Teesside County in a revised form. That revised form is in the Notice Paper now as my right hon. Friend's Amendment No. 61. Comparison of that Amendment with the Teesside County as described in page 203 of the Bill shows that if the Amendment is accepted we shall have removed from the county the urban district of Whitby, the rural district of Whitby, and the parishes of Crathorne, Great Ayton, High Worsall, Little Ayton, Low Worsall, Middleton-on-Leven, Newby Picton and Seamer. In removing those parishes of Stokesley we have, I am certain, not removed all the hinterland from Teesside, but have left a reasonable and proper area around a built up area of this sort.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) mentioned, we have left certain parishes; this emerged from the Amendment he put in the Notice Paper and to which he has spoken today. They are parishes which form part of the development plan for the area to the south-west of the county. It is true that the proposed development does not cover the full area of those parishes but it would be difficult at the present stage to which those proposals for development have gone to define the areas which may be developed in terms of any parish boundaries or rural district boundaries and to describe accurately in the Bill the proper area to include in this county.
In discussing boundaries in Committee we have often said that where one is dividing a parish probably the right thing to do is to leave it to the Boundary Commission to settle the exact line in future. In some cases we have been able to settle a reasonable line. Here, I think that the right thing to do with the five or six parishes mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock is to leave any division of them to the Boundary Commission. We have described the area by parish boundaries, but these may need to be tidied up by the Commission. I do not think that it makes any difference to the area as a local government area to leave that process to some date shortly after 1974.
We have reached the position now that by our discussion with the local authori-

ties concerned, by our listening to the arguments put forward in Committee by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, there has emerged what we first called the Teesside County but which is now called the Cleveland County—a county which I am sure makes a useful local government unit as a non-metropolitan county.
11.30 p.m.
That brings me to the points raised by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools. In his proposition that this should be a metropolitan county, he quoted a number of my phrases in Committee. Again I say that our Committee discussions caused me to be flexible over the points I made from time to time. The hon. Member's quotations were from what I said on occasions in the early stages of our discussions, and I am sure that he will acknowledge that his arguments in Committee frequently persuaded me to change my mind, and that arguments from other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in Committee made me revise our original ideas. That should be so in Committee. But the hon. Member has not today persuaded me to change my mind and turn this into a metropolitan county, because such a metropolitan county would consist of only two districts which would not necessarily be of the right numbers, population and resources for metropolitan districts. Even if one got them up to the figure necessary for a metropolitan district, to create a county consisting of only two districts would not be in accord with our ideas for the structure of local government. That sort of metropolitan county might lead to great friction between the two districts.
We have said that where there is an area which is populous and compact and which can be divided into several districts of the right sort of numbers, compactness and population, a metropolitan district is the right thing. The hon. Member pointed out that I said at one time that this area might qualify in some ten years' time for metropolitan county status. I think that that is so. By looking at the growth, it may be that by addition of areas outside the present county it might qualify. I would think not. I would think that the growth would be within the county itself, without adding anything outside the county, to give it that qualification for a metropolitan county at some future date; that is to say, in the


future one will be able to divide the interior of the county into the necessary number of districts with the necessary population. At present, however, it is quite impossible to say that this county would be right as a metropolitan county.
What we are doing in the Bill is to set up forms of local government. At this stage we are saying, "This area or that area fits into this particular form of local government. It may be that in future others will qualify for this or that kind of local government structure which we are providing for in the Bill." But at present, Tees-side County, as it was called—Cleveland County as we shall know it in future—is right as a non-metropolitan county, and would not qualify at present as a metropolitan county.

Amendment negatived.

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to introduce a new system of housing subsidies for housing authorities; to provide for rent rebate and rent allowance schemes administered by housing authorities; to make provision as to the housing accounts of local authorities; to amend the law about rents of houses and in particular those subject to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 or provided by housing authorities; and to make other provisions as to housing finance, it is expedient to authorise payments out of money provided by Parliament as follows: —
Housing subsidies for housing associations or the Housing Corporation as set out below—
A. Special residual subsidy, that is a reducing sum based on the housing subsidies which would have been receivable but for the proposed repeal of sections 1 to 12 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968.
B. New building subsidy, that is 100 per cent. or less of the initial deficit incurred on any building scheme approved by the Secretary of State.

C. Improvement subsidy, that is 100 per cent. or less of the initial deficit incurred on any improvement scheme approved by the Secretary of State.—[Mr. Younger.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gray.]

ROLLS-ROYCE LIMITED (WORKERS' SHARES)

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Walter Johnson: I wish to draw attention to the issue of workers' shares in the old Rolls-Royce company. It will be recalled that just over 12 months ago the House heard the very unpleasant news that Rolls-Royce, a company famous in the history of this country, was to go into liquidation on the advice of a receiver put in by the Government. This was a crisis situation for one of the most famous companies which had ever existed in Britain and was clearly a shock to the House and to the nation.
It is pleasant to see new faces on the Front Bench. I congratulate the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) on his appointment as Under-Secretary of State. I pay tribute to his predecessor in that office and also to the previous Minister for Aerospace. I am sorry that they have departed. They did a very good job. They were also very helpful, courteous and understanding of the human problems resulting from the collapse of Rolls-Royce. I make that statement without reservation having been one of their most severe critics on detail over the past year.
The collapse of Rolls-Royce resulted in serious hardship for many people, in particular to the worker shareholders, other shareholders, unsecured creditors and creditors generally.
Hon. Members representing Derby and and surrounding areas have from time to time questioned the Minister and tried to get some satisfaction on the question of worker shareholders. I have tabled a series of Questions almost weekly to the Minister over the past 12 or 15 months asking when he could give general advice to the House on the question of workers' shares. What is so unfortunate is that


although the Minister had indicated that there could be a possibility of something being done for those who had invested their lives and life savings in workers' shares, on 31st January of this year, in reply to a Question tabled by me, the Minister said:
I have written today to the Chairman of the Derby Group Rolls-Royce Shareholders Action Association to inform him that the Government have reluctantly concluded that no special treatment can be afforded to the holders of Rolls-Royce Ltd. workers' shares."—[Official Report, 31st January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 5.]
The Minister then explained in some detail why this could not be done.
For decades Derby has been recognised as the home of Rolls-Royce. Men who have worked with the company for years have, on their retirement, moved to other parts of the country; so those affected by the problem to which I draw attention do not come only from Derby. I have received, as many of my colleagues from the area have received, details of many tragic cases of people who have not only invested their lives by working for the company for 40 to 50 years but who, on the advice of their foremen, invested their savings in the company that employed them.
This situation has existed since 1955 and these employees, who, as I have said, have served their apprenticeship and have worked in this famous company not only in peacetime but throughout the war, on the advice of the company and in particular of their immediate supervisors invested their life savings in the old Rolls-Royce workers shares.
I have known of some tragic cases, as I am sure have other hon. Members. I have with me three letters out of 230 which I have received on this subject. They tell the tragic stories of men who have invested their life savings in this company and have then found their investments almost worthless.
In one letter, the writer says:
I retired from the company in October, 1967, and last June, 1971, was in hospital due to heart trouble and now have to sleep downstairs. The money I have saved through the old Rolls-Royce workers shareholding, and also taking up other ordinary shares as well, were my life's savings. They could have helped me to buy a bungalow and to have been used for holidays.
That is one example. There are many others. In another case the man says:

I was relying on the pension that I got not only from Rolls-Royce but my workers' shareholding to enable me to put aside money with the half yearly dividend to pay bills and arrange for holidays and to take account of all sorts of additional little luxuries which make the differences between living a full life and just existing in retirement.
Obviously I could go on quoting from many more letters like that.
I ask the Minister to think again about the whole question of workers' shares. I am aware of the reply that has already been given—a very full reply—that it is almost impossible under the present set up for workers' shares to be treated differently from ordinary shareholdings. But I should like to draw attention to a number of issues. One cannot sell a workers' shareholding like a normal shareholding. Workers' shares could be sold only when the company gave permission, and even then could be sold only to other employees in the company. It was clear to many who had been in the employ of the company for a number of years that Rolls-Royce was in some difficulty. I know that many of these folk would have liked the opportunity to sell their shares, but they were not permitted to do so under the deed setting up workers' shares. This seems to me to be a very good reason why the Government should give special consideration to this problem.
Some months ago I put down a Question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, asking that the Government should give special consideration to workers' shares and suggesting that they should introduce legislation to make workers' shareholdings in any company a first charge on that company, in the same way as is a preference share, whether it be debenture stock or something of the sort. This seems to me to be necessary and fair.
There is a precedent for dealing with shareholdings when a company runs into difficulty. I need not remind the Minister that, in the years immediately after the last war, it was clear that the mining industry and the transport industry, notably the railways, were in a state of bankruptcy. They had got along reasonably well because they were necessary to the war effort, but one recalls that a very famous Member of the House many years ago described the railways as a bankrupt industry, and mining was in the same state.
In respect of both those industries, arrangements were made to deal fairly and reasonably with those who had invested their savings in some form or other, particularly in ordinary shares, in the companies concerned. For example, I am advised that, although one of the principal railway companies had paid no dividend at all for very many years prior to nationalisation, under the terms of the nationalisation shareholders were guaranteed 3 per cent. interest, although the nation was taking over a virtually bankrupt company.
I put it to the Minister in all seriousness that Rolls-Royce is a similar case. The Government decided to allow the company to go into liquidation. All right. We could have a long discussion about the White Paper, whether that decision was right, and whether in the long run it has cost the nation more to save Rolls-Royce by nationalising it, in view of the loss of confidence in the company. But this is not the occasion to go into those arguments.
There is a special case for the workers' shareholdings to be reconsidered by the Government along the lines I have suggested, by some grant in aid or by writing in something in relation to the assets of the new Rolls-Royce company. That has not yet been determined, and I understand that it is a big problem. When the nation is paying about £200 million to bolster the RB211—I am 100 per cent. behind that, as I have been throughout, in company with my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and the hon. Members for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) and for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost)—I feel that something should be done for the worker shareholders. To leave certain people out on a limb seems to me to be a shabby way to treat people who have invested not only their working lives in the company but their life savings as well.
I ask you, therefore, in all seriousness——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The hon. Member will not ask the Chair, I hope.

Mr. Johnson: I ask the Minister, in all seriousness, to reconsider the answer which he previously gave to me and to

look again at the problem in the interests of everyone concerned. This is not a political or party issue. We are trying to get justice for people who have done a jolly good job in the service of the nation. In that spirit, I ask the Minister to respond to my plea.

11.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Cranley Onslow): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson) for the tone which he adopted throughout this necessarily short debate. I assure him that not only am I grateful for his complimentary remarks about me but that he and I are agreed that one of the most unfortunate consequences of the collapse of Rolls-Royce and the difficulties which led up to it was the effect on the holders of the company's shares, particularly the company's workers' shares.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman also for the way in which he recognised the humanity and understanding with which my right hon. and hon. Friends who preceded me in this office approached the matter. He will, I hope, take it from me that the Government have every sympathy with the worker shareholders and for all those affected by the collapse of Rolls-Royce. I fully understand the feelings which led the hon. Gentleman to raise the matter on the Adjournment tonight, but I have to stress that I cannot accept the strictures which he has levelled, albeit moderately, at the Government.
The fact is that the whole problem arises because of the collapse of the company, and, as has been repeatedly made clear, the responsibility for that collapse rests with the old company, not with the Government. The Government did not nationalise Rolls-Royce, nor did they appoint the Receiver. In this whole affair the Government stand as the custodian of the taxpayers' money and the public interest and a balance has to be struck between this and any other considerations that might arise.
The basis of the workers' shares scheme, which was established in 1955, was that the employees were entitled to purchase from trustees a limited number of workers' shares at par, which was 10s., the entitlement depending upon the


employee's length of service. The maximum possible holding was 1,600 shares, the par value of which was £800. For most of the period during which the scheme was in operation the market value of the company's ordinary shares was substantially above par. Since the workers' shares were on the same footing as the ordinary shares as regards dividends, scrip issues, voting rights and participation in ordinary share rights issues, they were, while the company was prospering, an attractive investment. Many holders of workers' shares enjoyed attractive dividends much in excess of dividends payable to shareholders who had bought their shares at market price.
I am told that in 1967 the return on workers' shares which were bought before 1958 was some 26 per cent. In these circumstances they seemed an attractive investment. On the other hand, because of the constitution of the scheme workers' shares could be disposed of only to the trustees at par.
The history of this is well-known to all those who followed it. Rolls-Royce shares fell below par early in 1970 and between January and November of that year some 20 per cent. of workers' shares were sold back to the trustees. It is interesting to note that most of these sales were made on the part of those with a larger holding of shares. Amongst those who held between one and 50 shares sales were as small as 3 per cent. whereas in the top bracket sales were as high as 30 per cent.
In November, 1970, the trustees took advice about the legal position and were told that the company could not lawfully advance further funds for repurchases from worker shareholders. The holders of workers' shares thus became locked in as they could not dispose of their shares even at a loss. This situation continued until the appointment of the Receiver and applied to a total of 9,335 holders, holding shares worth about £1·9 million in all, an average holding of about £200. The problem of being "locked in" did not apply to the company's ordinary shares, dealings in which continued up to the date of the receiver ship and for a short time thereafter, although at a very low value.
In this situation, there seemed to the Government to be a case for consider-

ing whether the position of workers' shares could properly be distinguished from that of the ordinary shares, many of which were held by small investors, and afforded special treatment. In the debate on 11th February, 1971, immediately after the collapse of Rolls-Royce, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) undertook to consider whether anything might be done on these lines. Since then, the Government have carefully and thoroughly considered ways in which this aim might be achieved. As part of the study there were consultations with the Receiver of Rolls-Royce and with the board of Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited and my right hon. Friend had two meetings on 25th March, 1971, and 24th January this year with a delegation from the Rolls-Royce Employees' and Ex-Employees' Shareholders Action Association. These delegations were accompanied by my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) and Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), both of whom I am glad to see here tonight. My right hon. Friend also received a number of individual representations.
In examining the possibilities, the Government felt that they should weigh against the disadvantages of the locked-in situation the countervailing advantages that in earlier times the workers' shareholders had had over Rolls-Royce ordinary shareholders. The former benefited particularly in terms of effective dividend by being able to buy their shares at par when the market price of ordinary shares was substantially higher. Against this background, the Government reluctantly concluded that it was not possible to devise any scheme whereby workers' shareholders could be directly compensated which would avoid unfairness to other shareholders and creditors of the Company. My right hon. Friend has had representations from small shareholders of Rolls-Royce ordinary shares making this very point.

Mr. Johnson: I am making the request to the Minister, which has been made in the House before, that he should transfer some of the workers' shareholdings and give them rights in the 1971 company, because they have a special right in the matter. The hon. Gentleman mentioned their relationship with other shareholders. But the point is that they were


not able to sell their shares in the same way as were other shareholders. That is the main issue.

Mr. Onslow: The matter the hon. Gentleman raises is one which comes to be considered later. If there is to be any scheme for preferential treatment of the former shareholders in the old Rolls-Royce company, it would need to be applied equally to the holders of the ordinary shares and to those of the workers' shares.

Mr. Peter Rost: On the question of preferential treatment, can my hon. Friend say whether Rolls-Royce shareholders, including workers' shareholders, will be given a preferential allocation when the Rolls-Royce Motors new issue is sold to the public shortly?

Mr. Onslow: I cannot answer that. I would hesitate to hold out any such hope.
The Government therefore considered whether it was possible to devise any other scheme or arrangement which would help the worker shareholders. All possibilities were considered, but it became clear that there was none which would be both practicable and equitable. Consequently, my right hon. Friend announced on 31st January this year, in answer to a Question for the hon. Gentleman, the Government's reluctant conclusion that no special treatment could be afforded to the holders of Rolls-Royce Limited workers' shares.
In his Early Day Motion of 3rd February this year, the hon. Gentleman spoke of the Government having now decided that the workers' shares are worthless. I need hardly say that no such decision has been made. It is not one for the Government to make. Whether the shares have any value depends upon whether the Joint Liquidators realise enough from the sale of the old company's assets to pay the creditors in full. If they do, any surplus will be available for distribution between the shareholders, and in such distributions holders of workers' shares will rank equally with holders of ordinary shares. I cannot say whether there will be any such surplus, and it would be wrong of me to speculate on the prospects of it.
The hon. Gentleman asked that the Government should look at the matter again. I regret that I cannot undertake to do so. The arguments which the hon. Gentleman advanced were fully taken into account in the Government's consideration of the matter, and I have been over the papers again with care. No new matter arises from what he said to night. I do not believe that it would be of service to the worker shareholders to raise false hopes.
However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman in one thing. In retrospect it is clear that the workers' shares scheme had a major flaw. My Department is considering whether the difficulties revealed make necessary any amendment of company law. The basic defect in the Rolls-Royce scheme seems to have been that whilst provision was made for holders of workers' shares to sell them back to the trustees, no action was taken to ensure that the trustees would have the funds to enable them to make such repurchases. This clearly needs to be looked at, and I can assure the House that it will be looked at.
Meanwhile, I repeat that I am sorry not to be able to accept the hon. Member's request for reconsideration of the Government's decision on the treatment of these shares. I hope that what I have said has done something to make it clear to him that the Government spared no effort in exploring all the possibilities open to them and reached their conclusion only with very considerable reluctance.

12 midnight.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I am disappointed by what my hon. Friend said, although I had little hope, unless the Government were prepared to grant a special subsidy or special extra-curricula aid to the worker shareholders, in which case it would have been slightly unfair to the small holders of the ordinary shares.
But my hon. Friend must take it from the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) and the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson) and I are worried about the effect on the holders of these shares. It is difficult to differentiate between ordinary small shareholders and worker shareholders. There


is, however, a feeling of having been hard done by among these people and what my hon. Friend said will not satisfy them.
My hon. Friend and I and the hon. Gentleman have been asked for further meetings in the House with them and perhaps this may lead to a meeting with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. Although he now has nothing more to say, and we have no new evidence to give him, I ask him to be kind enough to receive a deputation if it wishes and to listen to its arguments sympathetically.

Mr. Onslow: I assure my hon. Friend that I am most willing to meet him and any other hon. Members concerned with this matter so that we may discuss it together. I share their concern, but it does not necessarily lie within the Government's power, bound as they are by Statute and duty to the taxpayer, to give redress to these shareholders. If there is to be redress, it can be sought only by other means. But I shall be happy to discuss this matter with hon. Members at any time.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Twelve o'clock.